Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

PENSIONS

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Pensions (Increase) Acts (Extension) (No. 1) Order, 1963, be made in the form of the Draft laid before your House on 26th November.

I will comply with your request.

BUILDING (ALDERSHOT)

Return ordered,
containing a technical statement by the Building Research Station on the collapse of a building under construction at Aldershot with an explanatory introduction."—[Mr. Rippon.]

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Aysgarth and Leyburn (Reception)

Mr. Kitson: asked the Postmaster-General when it is intended to improve the present unsatisfactory reception of the British Broadcasting Corporation television in the Aysgarth and Leyburn area; and what the estimated cost is.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Ray Mawby): As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) on 4th December, the B.B.C. are continuing to plan improvements and extensions of their television coverage by means of low-power stations, of which the first three batches are in hand. We understand that they are now preparing a fourth list of such stations, but, until my right hon. Friend receives their proposals, he is sorry he cannot comment with regard to individual areas.

Mr. Kitson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is virtually no television reception in this area and that the inhabitants object to paying £4 for nothing? Will he try to make sure that they are included on the new list?

Mr. Mawby: Naturally, I take that into account. I think that it would be of interest to the House to know that when the present satellite stations already authorised are in operation the B.B.C.'s first television programme will be available to almost 99·5 per cent. of the population. This is no mean achievement and is probably better than that in any other country.

Advertisements

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Postmaster -General whether he will consult the Independent Television Authority with a view to the curtailment of advertising, particularly in children's viewing time, directed at children.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): No, Sir. I consulted the Authority during the debates on the Television Act, 1963, on advertisements affecting children. With the assistance of its Advertising Advisory Committee, the I.T.A. has drawn up rules to ensure that advertisements seen by children will not be harmful. These rules, which were published in the Authority's Report and Accounts for 1962–63, are strictly enforced.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Exactly what is meant by "harmful"? Does "harmful" include advertisements which are intended to get small children to persuade their parents to buy things which their parents may not be able to afford? Is not that injurious to family harmony and happiness?

Mr. Bevins: I think it might be if that were to occur. I have not seen any evidence of that. If my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind, I shall be very glad to discuss them with the authorities.

Colour Television

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Postmaster-General what progress is being made towards the establishment of a colour television service in this country; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Broughton: asked the Postmaster-General what progress is being made towards the broadcasting of colour television.

Mr. Bevins: As HON. MEMBERS know, a choice has to be made between three systems, and it is highly desirable that European countries should choose the same system, otherwise we shall be unable to exchange colour programmes with them and export opportunities will be reduced. There is to be a meeting in London in February of the appropriate international agency, which I hope will lead to an agreed recommendation about adopting a common system for Europe.
Meanwhile, my Television Advisory Committee is due to meet in January, and I hope to have soon afterwards its advice on the policy to be followed.

Mr. Smith: Would my right hon. Friend agree that as a country with one of the leading television services in the world we ought to be taking a lead in this matter and not necessarily wait for other European countries to make their decision? Would he not also agree that perhaps overall the American system may suit our needs best and may be cheapen than the German P.A.L. system and the French Secam system?

Mr. Bevins: Any suggestion that we are dragging our feet in the matter of colour television is quite wrong. It is vitally important to the future of our radio industry that we should, if possible, have a system which is common to Europe, because, if we do not have that, our opportunities for exporting both programme material and radio components will be much less than they otherwise would be.

Dr. Broughton: Will the Postmaster-General give an assurance that he will do all that he possibly can to try to put us in the van of progress in colour television? Is it not the case that we have lagged behind, because colour television is already being shown in parts of the United States? Does not he agree that it is desirable and important that we should take the lead in this matter?

Mr. Bevins: I am in no doubt whatever that we have taken the best initiative that we can. The number of people in America who see colour television is

less than 1 per cent. of all viewers. The sets are very expensive indeed. I am sure that we have played this at the right pace so that by about 1965 we shall have colour television in this country and, I hope, at prices which people will be able to afford.

Mr. F. Harris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is about six years ago that Members saw samples of colour television in the House? Is there a chance that there will be colour television during my lifetime?

Mr. Bevins: Assuming, as I do, that my hon. Friend survives about another eighteen months, yes.

Mr. Mason: Is it not a fact that a sub-committee of experts of the European broadcasting services who have been examining the matter of European compatibility in colour television should have reported by now suggesting what would be the best colour system? Has not the right hon. Gentleman or the B.B.C. yet made up their minds whether it shall be N.T.S.C., P.A.L. or Secam? Unless they make up their minds very quickly for the spring meeting of the International Radio Consultative Committee, the timetable the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned for introducing colour television in 1965 will not be achieved.

Mr. Bevins: These discussions have been going on for some time and the Post Office and the B.B.C. have played their respective parts. We are hoping that agreement will be reached at European level in February of the coming year.

Licences

Mr. Fitch: asked the Postmaster-General if, with a view to preventing licence evasion, he will introduce legislation to compel all retailers of wireless and television sets to report each sale or rental to the Post Office authorities.

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. Any advantage that might be gained from such a measure would be outweighed by practical difficulties and by increased costs.

Mr. Fitch: Can the Postmaster-General say how much money was spent by his Department in the last financial year in attempting to detect non-licence holders?

Mr. Bevins: Not without notice, but it is quite a substantial amount. I must add that, if we were to do as the Question suggests, it would impose a very heavy burden on the radio industry, and an even larger one on the Post Office. The biggest practical difficulty inherent in this suggestion is that most people who purchase or hire new sets at present are already licensed in respect of old sets.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Has my right hon. friend made any effort to find out how much income has been lost to the B.B.C. in this way and has he made any calculation of the effect that this proposal would have in increasing the B.B.C.'s revenue?

Mr. Bevins: No doubt it would have some effect in increasing the B.B.C.'s revenue, but it would also have the converse effect of increasing the expenditure of the Post Office on administration. That, in turn, would react against the B.B.C. Our present measures to prevent evasion are proving very successful. In the first ten months of this year, about 300,000 people took out new licences for the first time.

Mr. Swingler: What sample research has the Post Office done into the so-called practical difficulties of implementing this proposal? Is he aware that most people who have considered this matter cannot see why there is any difficulty in enforcing this very simple rule, which would save the right hon. Gentleman's Department considerable detection difficulties?

Mr. Bevins: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think he has considered all the complications which would arise. If we were to do this, we should have, first, to place an obligation on all the radio dealers in the trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Obviously. Substantial costs would clearly be incurred in making sure that that radio dealers met their obligations and in checking against licence records the information supplied by the dealers. Most of this work would be abortive because most people already have licences.

Relay Stations, Scotland

Mr. Small: asked the Postmaster-General how many microwave relay stations have been, or are being, con-

structed in Scotland; and what proportion of the additional 37 such stations to be constructed in the next five years will be built there.

Mr. Mawby: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is seventeen. Of the additional 37 stations mentioned in our recent White Paper, six will be in Scotland.

Mr. Small: Has the hon. Gentleman considered whether that number is adequate? Will he give the utmost consideration to advancing the programme of construction in order to help employment prospects in Scotland?

Mr. Mawby: The difficulty is that we need the relay stations only to transmit messages from A to B. Therefore, we are limited in the number that we can build. However, I will take into account the hon. Gentleman's point. There is not a great deal of work involved in these towers, but we estimate that the cost of the six new stations will be about £500,000, which is a bit of help.

Pay-Television (Films)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Postmaster-General if he will consult the Cinematograph Films Council about the terms and conditions for the exhibition of feature films on experimental pay-television services.

Mr. Bevins: Consultation with the Cinematograph Films Council is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development. Because of the Board of Trade's concern with the film industry I am, as I told the House on 11th December, consulting my right hon. Friend about the showing of cinema films on pay-television.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the Films Council is about to report to his right hon. Friend on the subject of monopoly practices in the cinema trade and is faced with serious and considerable complaints about the long delays in releasing British films? Will he, therefore, keep an open mind about the terms and conditions of showing feature films on pay-television because of the assistance which might be given to the film-producing industry?

Mr. Bevins: I do not want to encroach on the domain of my right hon. Friend, but I freely admit that this is a difficult and complicated matter and I shall certainly have regard to the considerations which the hon. Member has mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Housing Estate, Cardiff

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inadequate public telephone facilities on the Caerau and Ely Racecourse housing estates in Cardiff; and what steps he proposes to take.

Mr. Mawby: My right hon. Friend intends to provide two more telephone kiosks on these estates as soon as suitable sites have been obtained, we hope at an early date.

Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can I look forward to these telephones being installed by January?

Mr. Mawby: I would not go so far as to give any particular date, but they certainly will be in at the earliest possible date.

Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General how many private telephones in Aberdeen are in use; how many applicants are on the waiting list; and how these figures compare with those for each of the last 10 years at the corresponding dates.

Mr. Mawby: As the Answer contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report. The present waiting list is 18 compared with 1,354 in 1953.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the telephone system is of the utmost importance for business and social contacts in the north of Scotland, and will he, therefore, avoid copying the obnoxious policy of Dr. Beeching in the case of the railways, who is destroying valuable social and business contacts between the people there, and take steps to avoid that kind of obnoxious conduct in the case of the telephone?

Mr. Mawby: It is not for me to comment. Our aim is to make certain that communications will be the best possible for anyone who wants a telephone. This is our aim, and I believe that, in the main, in future this is what we shall achieve.

Following are the figures:

—
Number of telephones
Waiting List
Applications under enquiry or being met


30th September, 1953
14,620
1,354
326


30th September, 1954
15,935
1,094
310


30th September, 1955
16,659
1,466
239


30th September, 1956
17,445
882
452


30th September, 1957
18,507
126
491


30th September, 1958
18,567
49
260


30th September, 1959
18,903
73
208


30th September, 1960
19,493
104
252


30th September, 1961
20,328
111
203


30th September, 1962
20,590
27
233


30th September, 1963
21,227
25
265


30th November, 1963
21,317
18
295

Sales Promotion Calls

Mr. Denis Howell: asked the Postmaster-General if he will seek powers to make it illegal to use the telephone service for the purposes of general sales and advertising promotions in respect of private residences.

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir.

Mr. Howell: Is not the Minister aware that that reply will cause grave alarm to many telephone subscribers? This pestilence of ringing people up is an incursion into the privacy of the home. Why should this American type of advertising be carried out in this country at the expense of ordinary telephone subscribers who want to be left in peace and who, having paid the rent for their telephones, are entitled to be left in peace?

Mr. Bevins: Telephone calls which are made for selling or advertising purposes are not an offence under the present law. Although there may be certain cases which are offensive to certain subscribers, I think that, on the whole, we are right to encourage the use of the telephone.

Mr. Howell: Is the Postmaster-General aware that I have received a lot of correspondence on this matter? I have had one letter from a lady who had to go into a mental home. She was pestered by the Encyclopaedia Britannica four times, asking for her husband, who had recently died. I know of many other cases. One case was referred to me by an officer of the Worcestershire Constabulary, following the same sort of lines. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a very serious hardship which is extending throughout the country and it ought to be dealt with at once, whether or not he has powers? Will he look at it again?

Mr. Bevins: I am willing to look at it again, but provided that this sort of call is made with a reasonable sense of decency and propriety I see nothing wrong with it.

Mrs. Slater: Is the Postmaster-General aware that this is a growing practice now and that the Encyclopaedia Britannica actually rang me up and suggested that it had the support of the House? I know that it was only a girl who said that, but the fact remains that the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given will encourage firms like this to continue to say that they have the support of the House to do it. It is a bad way of trying to sell commodities to ring up people who are paying a considerable amount by way of rent for their telephones.

Mr. Bevins: In a general sense, I should certainly be opposed to interference with telephone calls that are made for the purpose of selling goods. If it should turn out in certain cases that those calls are not made in a way that respects the feelings and susceptibilities of the subscriber, I am perfectly willing to do something.

Mr. Howell: I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Central Scotland

Mr. Manuel: asked the Postmaster-General what special action he intends to take to reduce the waiting lists for telephone installations by providing more telephone facilities in the districts designated as growth areas in the White Paper on Central Scotland.

Mr. Bevins: There are already plans for providing more exchange equipment and cables in these areas. The position is now being reviewed with a view to speeding up matters in accordance with the aims announced in the recent White Paper.

Mr. Manuel: Can the Postmaster-General give us any idea just how soon they will catch up with the great lag in many areas of Scotland, especially in the bell indicated in the Question? Is he fully seized of the importance of his Department's initiative matching that of the local authorities, which are spending a great deal of money? Is he also aware of how necessary it is that when industrialists, executives and key workers come into an area they should have phone facilities provided in their homes and in the factories so that communications there will be as good as the best down here?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, I am aware of all those considerations. I think that the hon. Gentleman may like to know that in those parts of Central Scotland, which are served by about fifty exchanges, there are at present about 50,000 subscribers and only about 500 people are waiting for telephones. We are speeding up our plans. If the hon. Gentleman would like to have detailed information as to what we are doing, I will gladly write to him.

Motorways (Emergency Services)

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consult the Minister of Transport with a view to providing more emergency telephone services on motorways in remote country districts where there are no houses in sight.

Mr. Bevins: It is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to decide whether these telephones should be installed. They


are, of course, different from public telephones, since they are connected only with police centres. My responsibility is to see that the service is provided when an order has been given.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for appearing to show willing, but can he, as the Question asks, liaise with his right hon. Friend, who appears to be unwilling to provide safety telephones on the Maidstone by-pass?

Mr. Bevins: I am always willing to talk to my right hon. Friend, although strictly speaking the initiative should not be for me.

Feltham

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Postmaster-General why the number of no pick-up calls is increasing on the Feltham exchange; and what steps are being taken to improve the position.

Mr. Bevins: These difficulties have been caused mainly by a heavy load on the exchange. Extra lines to central London have now been provided and a special overhaul of the equipment at the Feltham exchange has just been completed. From now on the service should be very much better.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. Would he bear in mind that when a subscriber gets a no-pick-up call he does not report it to the engineers in the usual way? It is, therefore, obvious that the engineers must be told to keep a special watch and ensure that all the maintenance machinery and junctions are in working order so that no-pick-up calls do not occur?

Mr. Bevins: Yes.

Kirkcaldy

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the Kirkcaldy Telephone Exchange is in a growth area as designated in the White Paper on Central Scotland; and what steps he intends to take to speed up the provision of subscriber trunk dialling in this area.

Mr. Mawby: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend expects to provide subscriber trunk dialling at Kirkcaldy early in 1966. We are sorry it is not possible to provide the facility earlier, but by that time

90 per cent. of the subscribers in the Central Fife growth area should have S.T.D., compared with 70 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the areas of local calls were extended the price of a call from Kirkcaldy to Edinburgh was increased; and, in view of the fact that it will be 1966 before S.T.D. is introduced into the Kirkcaldy area, will the hon. Gentleman not consider reintroducing a special charge for calls between Kirkcaldy and Edinburgh which are of great importance to the commercial interests in the area?

Mr. Mawby: I will have a look at that point.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, in conformity with paragraph 11 of the recent White Paper, the growth area in Central Scotland will have S.T.D. with the rest of the country completely by 1970?

Mr. Mawby: It is our aim to carry out what is said in the White Paper, and this we shall certainly do.

Subscriber Trunk Dialling (Scotland)

Mr. Ross: asked the Postmaster-General what proportion of telephone subscribers in Scotland enjoy subscriber trunk dialling facilities; and by how much that proportion will increase in the next three years.

Mr. Bevins: Thirty-four per cent. of telephone subscribers in Scotland now have STD and, if all goes well, 70 per cent. are expected to have it by the end of 1966.

Mr. Ross: Then that means that we shall have in the Highlands exactly the same percentage as Central Scotland has been promised?

Mr. Bevins: It means that in Scotland as a whole 70 per cent. of subscribers will have subscriber trunk dialling by the end of 1966.

Mr. Ross: But the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in answer to Question No. 17 he said that he hoped that the figure would be, I think, 90 per cent. in the growth areas, which will be getting preferential treatment


over the next few years, which means that we shall have subscriber trunk dialling practically all over Scotland evenly spread at 70 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman must keep up to his promise.

Mr. Bevins: That is true. By the end of 1970 the figure will be almost 100 per cent.

Capital Development, Scotland

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Postmaster-General how much of the proposed £900 million to be invested in the inland telephone service in the next five years will be invested in Scotland.

Mr. Mawby: On present estimates, based on the expected demand for telephone service, about 8 per cent. of the total will be invested in the telephone service in Scotland.

Mr. Hamilton: Does that mean that the figure of 1½ per cent. per year over these years which the hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) last week will remain at that level? If so, it is an extremely unsatisfactory position for Scotland.

Mr. Mawby: As I said, that is our basis on present estimates, but, obviously, if we can make any progress in this respect we will certainly do so.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Can my hon. Friend say whether that figure includes cables? Is it not a fact that an increasing proportion of Post Office cables, excluding paper-cored insulated cables, is being made in Scotland, particularly in the Renfrew, East constituency, which is in a development district?

Mr. Mawby: It is quite true that Scottish Cables Limited are making a considerable amount. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] I cannot give the exact amount without notice.

Mr. Mason: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Scotland is in need of better treatment than this? Since 1955, Scotland has badly lagged behind in telephone developments compared with England and Wales, and particularly Northern Ireland. It has the lowest rate of growth in terms of telephone penetration and the engineering force has grown much more slowly than elsewhere.

Will the hon. Gentleman therefore consider making a sales drive to stimulate demand in Scotland? If it is successful, Scotland may be able to take a bigger proportion of the planned investment.

Mr. Mawby: We are running a sales drive throughout the country and not just in Scotland, but obviously the spread of the use of the telephone is tied up with a number of other things. Naturally, we want to get all these problems put right. When we do, greater use of the telephone will automatically follow.

Kiosks

Mr. Hayman: asked the Postmaster-General to what extent he continues to pay regard to non-commercial considerations in the provision and siting of public telephone kiosks.

Mr. Bevins: I have regard both to public amenity and to public finance. It is rare for a telephone kiosk to be refused where there is a clear need for one. At the same time there is a limit to what we can do in view of our current loss of more than £3 million a year on public kiosks.

Mr. Hayman: Can the Minister indicate by what percentage the provision of public telephone kiosks is less now than it was, say, five years ago?

Mr. Bevins: On the contrary, the provision of kiosks has not fallen but has increased, and we have about 75,000 kiosks throughout the country, which is very substantially greater than in any other European country.

Mr. Blackburn: Will the Postmaster-General add to the 75,000 and make it 75,001 by putting one on the Wood head Road near where the former hon. Member for Rotherham was killed?

Mr. Bevins: I will take note of that and see what I can do.

Stockport and Marple

Mr. H. Steward: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will now indicate an earlier completion date of the necessary work in the Stockport and Marple exchange telephone areas in order to connect the 205 applicants on the waiting list; what is the latest date on which a service will be provided for


these people; and whether priority will be given to the 38 who have been waiting for more than two years.

Mr. Mawby: The situation will be re-examined as part of the programme announced in the recent White Paper on the Inland Telephone Service, but I am sorry we cannot yet say what speeding up will be possible. Meanwhile, new cables are being laid and service is being given to the applicants now on the waiting list as plant becomes available. Many, including 24 of those waiting over two years, will have telephones within the next few weeks and the vast majority by the late summer of 1964.

Mr. Steward: Is my hon. Friend aware that this new hope will be very welcome indeed in these two districts?

Wallington

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Postmaster-General on what date he intends to begin work to convert the Wallington, Surrey, telephone exchange from manual to fully-automatic working.

Mr. Mawby: Present plans are to start the new Wallington automatic exchange building during 1965, and have the equipment in operation by 1968, but we will improve on this if we can.

Captain Elliot: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that that is not a very satisfactory Answer? Is he aware that this exchange serves a very populous area? Would he undertake to look at this project again with a view to advancing the date if he possibly can?

Mr. Mawby: In this case there are some difficulties, because till space is available for a new building we cannot carry on with it, and the space can be provided only after another building has been built to replace the postmen's district office. So we are in a little difficulty here, but we are not dragging our feet. Certainly with regard to equipment at the present moment it is rather old, but we have made special maintenance arrangements, and I am pleased to say from our reports that the average time to answer has gone down quite considerably over the recent past as a result of the special attention we have given to this point.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Crown Office, Shotts

Miss Herbison: asked the Postmaster-General where in Shotts he proposes to erect a Crown post office; and when work will begin on its construction.

Mr. Mawby: The Crown post office will be erected in Shottskirk Road, Dykehead. Construction work should begin in April, 1964.

Miss Herbison: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General ensure that it really does begin in April and that it is finished as quickly as possible, since this is a growth area and it would be a great help if there were adequate postal facilities in the area?

Mr. Mawby: The hon. Lady raised this matter some time ago in a supplementary question. I promised that we would try to bring the scheme forward as much as possible. In fact, I have only been able to make marginal improvements, but I can assure her that the building will commence in April next year and we shall certainly seek to move forward as fast as possible.

Repairs and Maintenance Work (North Lanarkshire)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Postmaster-General if he will set up a Post Office factory in North Lanarkshire, for the repair and maintenance of telephone and telecommunication instruments; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mawby: No, Sir. We are anxious to help the development areas as much as we can, but Post Office factories in their existing localities at London, Birmingham, South Wales and Edinburgh are expected to be adequate for all the foreseeable factory repair work. Minor repairs and maintenance work are usually done locally.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Edinburgh factory does not touch the bulk of telephone repair work? Does he realise that there are over 800,000 telephone users in Scotland, and that when telephones need major overhauls they have to go on a circuitous journey of 1,000 miles to Wales and back? Is it not in everybody's interest to site a factory which


will give employment to this area in North Lanarkshire which is both a development and a growth area?

Mr. Mawby: We have excess repair capacity so far as factory space and labour are concerned, but I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point.

North East (Contracts)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Postmaster-General what consideration he has given to the possibility of the Post Office itself producing in one or more of the vacant factories in the North East some of the telephone equipment which will be required for his recently announced expanded investment programme.

Mr. Mawby: In general, the Post Office does not itself manufacture telephone equipment, but obtains this from the industry. My right hon. Friend believes that this policy, which is of long standing, is right. I should add that some of the factories engaged in manufacturing equipment for the Post Office are located in the North East.

Mr. Fernyhough: When the Postmaster-General discussed his expansion programme with the firms who make the equipment—he informed me last week that he was keeping close liaison with them—did he ask them whether they would expand in the development areas? If he did, can he tell me what their answer was? If their answer was in the negative, can he say why, if the Government are really intent upon bringing employment to people who are at present unemployed in the development areas, the Government are inhibited and so doctrinaire about this policy?

Mr. Mawby: All I can say is that some of the companies that carry out contracts for us have factories, for instance, in East Kilbride, Sunderland, Birtley, Hartlepool, Liverpool and Airdrie. They are some of the factories which are operated by contractors working on our behalf.

Mr. Fernyhough: Could the hon. Gentleman give the percentage of the total amount of work which is done in the areas he has mentioned, so that we can see whether these expanding firms are making a contribution to providing

additional employment in the development areas?

Mr. Mawby: This information would be difficult for us to obtain, because the Post Office is an organisation which is asking for products to be manufactured. Naturally we give all assistance possible and special consideration to development areas, but I think it would be wrong for us to call upon each manufacturer to give us many more details which, in fact, are nothing to do with us.

Office Facilities, Birmingham (Erdington)

Mr. J. Silverman: asked the Postmaster-General if he will install a post office to serve the Wyrley Birch and Brookvale estates in Erdington, Birmingham.

Mr. Mawby: I am looking into this matter and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Silverman: I am grateful to know that the hon. Gentleman is looking into this matter. Will he bear in mind that considerable inconvenience is experienced by the residents of these areas as they have to walk long distances to obtain post office facilities? May I express the hope that he will expedite his consideration?

Mr. Mawby: Yes. I have already had a look at the problem, and I see the point of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I should like a little more time before making a firm decision.

Satellite Communications

Mr. Mason: asked the Postmaster-General what part the Post Office is to play in the development of a universal satellite communications system.

Mr. Bevins: The Post Office is undertaking further development of its highly successful satellite ground station at Goonhilly Down, which is generally regarded as the nearest approach so far to an operational station. The Post Office is also engaged in research and development work on the electronic equipment required for satellite communications, and it took part in the recently completed design study of satellites. The Post Office is also taking part in the international discussions now in progress.

Mr. Mason: I am obliged for that reply. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the statement of the Assistant Postmaster-General on Friday, 6th December, when winding up the debate, was a statement of Government policy when he said that we are now playing a part in developing a universal satellite communications system? If that is so, could he explain what he means by "universal" and which countries are participating in this development of a universal system?

Mr. Bevins: I think what my hon. Friend meant, quite rightly, was that by their very nature satellite communications are most economical when they are used on a world-wide basis. A single integrated world system is the right answer, provided the conditions we get are right.

Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman is evading the issue. The Assistant Postmaster-General said that we are now playing a part in developing a universal satellite communications system. Has a decision been taken by the Government? The Light hill Report was sent to the Government many weeks ago, and British industrialists are now eagerly awaiting a decision on the Report. That being so, the Government ought to be taking steps to enlighten the whole of British industry which is interested in this development on exactly what part this country will play in the development of satellite communications.

Mr. Bevins: What my hon. Friend had in mind is that we are having discussions on several fronts at the present time, first of all with our opposite numbers in the postal and telecommunications organisations in France, Germany and Italy. We are having conversations at a European conference—in fact, several have been held already—and, of course, with the Americans themselves. I expect there will be an exchange of views between the European conference on satellites and the American authorities early in 1964.

Bulk Supply Agreements

Mr. Mason: asked the Postmaster-General what proportion, in money terms, of the provision of trunks and junctions, subscribers' circuits, and local lines over the next five years will be

categorised as telephone apparatus, and therefore subject to the bulk supply agreements.

Mr. Bevins: Of the three classes of expenditure referred to in the hon. Member's Question only "subscribers' circuits" embody apparatus falling within the Telephone Apparatus Agreement. The best estimate I can make of expenditure on "subscribers' circuits" during the next five years is nearly £200 million, of which about a quarter will be on purchases under the Agreement.

Mr. Mason: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly what contracts in terms of money will go to the eight firms which form the ring receiving 75 per cent. of the telephone apparatus agreements which are in operation for the next five years?

Mr. Bevins: Certainly. The total expenditure under the three heads mentioned in the Question will amount to about £540 million, and of this I expect that, as near as makes no matter, £50 million will be spent on purchases under the bulk supply agreement for telephone apparatus.

Scottish Development Districts (Tenders)

Mr. Lawson: asked the Postmaster-General what plans he has for increasing purchases of telephonic equipment in Scotland in the next few years.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he has taken to ensure that increased orders for telephone equipment are placed with firms in areas designated as growth points or development districts.

Mr. Mawby: The Post Office already gives special treatment to these areas through the scheme under which tenders from firms in development districts are given a measure of encouragement. Our Contracts Department also takes great care, when tenders are sought, to ensure that all suitable firms in development districts are given the opportunity to tender. These measures will continue and my right hon. Friend hopes the firms will take increasing advantage of them.

Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those measures might be quite


inadequate to deal with the position because the bulk of the factories or firms making such equipment is concentrated in the South? Does he recall that on an earlier occasion he advised me that only 1 per cent. of Post Office equipment was purchased in Scotland? Will his Department use its very great purchasing power—about £900 million over the next few years—to ensure that development in this respect takes place in the parts of the country where it is most needed?

Mr. Mawby: That is what we are attempting to do, but I think it important to point out that we investigate each year about 1,000 new applications from firms, or trade associations acting on their behalf, to make certain that they know the sort of things that we require, which cover a vast range, and we show them how they can tender for these things. If we feel that an organisation cannot produce the main body of a contract, we break clown its size. We go to a great deal of trouble to ensure that people in these parts are able to tender. If they can show that they are capable of carrying out the order, we go to a great deal of trouble to make sure that they get it, or part of it.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman say what consultations take place between his Department and the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development, who has a great responsibility for development in these areas? Also, can he say whether the firms in Scotland which supply this equipment are working to capacity and whether his Department has given them an assurance that, if they expand, further orders from his Department will be forthcoming?

Mr. Mawby: We have said to all these industries that if they can show that they can quote competitive prices we are prepared to give them special consideration, as we do to all industries in the development areas. From what I have said earlier HON. MEMBERS will know that we are doing everything we possibly can to make sure that special consideration is given to any industry in a development area, and that tends to attract other industries to the area as well.

Office Facilities, East Ham

Mr. Oram: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the inadequate post office facilities in the Vicarage Lane area of East Ham; and what proposals he has to remedy the situation.

Mr. Mawby: I would agree that the distribution of post offices in this area is not as good as it might be. While I should not be justified in adding to their number, we will certainly consider altering their distribution as soon as a suitable opportunity occurs.

Mr. Oram: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while I appreciate the consideration which he has already given to the question, the conditions and circumstances in the area are such as to warrant post office facilities in its own right and that it should not depend upon the fate of offices in neighbouring areas? Will the hon. Gentleman look into this aspect of the matter again?

Mr. Mawby: Yes. As the hon. Member knows, I have paid particular attention to the problem, and I had hoped at one point that we had found a suitable way out. I will certainly look at the matter again and see whether we cannot find a way round it.

Postal Charges (Books)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Postmaster-General what reports he has received about the effect of increased book postage charges on the export of British books to foreign countries.

Mr. Mawby: I understand that in certain countries the selling price of British books has been raised following the increase in charges for printed papers sent overseas by surface mail; but we have no information about the effect of this on the number of British books exported. In any case, for the reasons given in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) on 18th November, my right hon. Friend does not see how he could have allowed the old rates, with the measure of subsidy which they involved, to continue.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that book exports are important not only in terms of the currency which they themselves earn, but also because they


convey British ideas and often lead to purchases of equipment and other useful exports? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these increased charges appear to make British books uncompetitive compared with books from other countries? Will not he look at this matter again?

Mr. Mawby: Yes, Sir. One of the major difficulties that we face is that if we are to carry out some of the social benefits that people expect from the G.P.O., we must have at least one department that is making a profit. Before 1st July, the reduced rate printed paper service was losing money at the rate of £1·7 million a year. Even with the increase in rates, the service is still running at a loss of about £½ million a year. The pre-1st July loss on overseas printed paper services as a whole was of the order of £3 million and it is still running at nearly half that amount. That is our difficulty. I am, however, seized of the point made by the hon. Member.

Christmas Postal Work (Schoolchildren)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Postmaster-General which local post offices in Scotland have approached the local education authority to obtain the release of children from school to assist in Christmas postal work.

Mr. Mawby: Ten head postmasters in Scotland have found it necessary to obtain the agreement of the local education authority and to approach schools about the release of children from school to assist in Christmas postal work. These are: Ardrossan, Dunbar, Edinburgh, Fort William, Galashiels, Glasgow, Hawick, Inverness, Oban, Paisley.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General really saying that in a place like Glasgow—and, perhaps, in Ardrossan and other places—there are not people unemployed who would like to have this kind of employment? Is not this quite wrong on grounds both of educational principle and of giving employment to those who need it most?

Mr. Mawby: First, we have to satisfy the authorities that no alternative suitable labour is available; then, we have to get the permission of the parents and, obviously, of the children themselves.

While I regret that we should have to keep children, even in this case, where they are over 16 years of age, away from school, it is one of those things that we do only when no suitable alternative labour is available.

Mr. Ross: Has the Minister consulted the Ministry of Labour in these areas?

Mr. Mawby: Yes, we are always in close contact with the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Ross: I did not ask that. I asked whether the Minister had specifically consulted the Ministry of Labour concerning employment possibilities of people who are unemployed in these areas at this particular time. Has he done this?

Mr. Mawby: There has been no special consultation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—with the Ministry of Labour. [Interruption.] I will certainly bear this in mind.

Mr. Vane: Are the opportunities for other areas to share in this work? I am sure that my children would like to play a part.

Miss Herbison: Since, in answer to a supplementary question, the Minister has stated that there was no real consultation with the Ministry of Labour, how can he tell the House that the Post Office had to satisfy itself that there was no suitable labour before it went to the schools and asked for young people to deliver the mail? Surely, those two statements are completely contradictory. If the family of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) wish to take part in this work, I am sure that nobody would stop them, but is the Minister aware that whether it is potatoes or the Post Office, we very often find that it is the children from the junior secondary schools who do these jobs?

Mr. Mawby: Let me make this quite clear. I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question that we are in consultation with the Ministry of Labour, and this will normally happen at the level required. Then he pressed me on the point, and I did say that, so far as I knew, we did not consult the Minister at his level on this particular matter at this particular point in time. That does not mean to say that


we do not satisfy ourselves through the local employment authorities that in fact labour is not available.

Mail Bag Robberies

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Postmaster-General on how many occasions since September thefts have taken place of moneys in transit by mail.

Mr. Bevins: In the period 1st October to 16th December, 33 mail bags containing registered letters were reported missing. Only one of these bags, that despatched on 9th October, contained bankers' packets. The value of these bankers' packets was £15,250.

Mr. Donnelly: What is the right hon. Gentleman's normal procedure for making public such thefts, because it raises a great question of confidence in the Post Office security services?

Mr. Bevins: I think that that probably arises more appropriately on the next two Questions.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Postmaster-General why he requested the Pembroke shire Constabulary not to take action in the case of the theft of £15,000 from the regular Haverford west to London mail train.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Postmaster-General why no public statement was made concerning the £15,000 mail robbery which took place in South Wales during October last; whether the serial numbers of the missing notes are known; and whether police assistance has been sought to solve the case.

Mr. Bevins: The case referred to concerns the loss of one mail bag despatched from Haverford west Post Office to the Carmarthen to Bristol Travelling Post Office on 9th October. The contents of the bag included four bankers packets containing £15,250. The enquiries that have been made, in full collaboration with the Police, including the Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and British Transport Police, have so far failed to establish where the theft occurred. It was not considered in the public interest to issue a statement and accordingly the Pembrokeshire Police were asked not to give publicity to the loss. The numbers of some of the missing bank notes were known and

these were given to the Police for circulation.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that my information is that the Pembrokeshire Constabulary were not informed of this theft until two days had elapsed since the money was missing? Is he further aware that my information is that the Pembrokeshire Police were asked to take no action on this matter and to keep the matter secret? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that on top of this, despite the statement to the contrary of his Department reported in the Press in the last day, one of the local newspapers did telephone the local head postmaster shortly after hearing the rumour and was given a categorical denial that the theft had ever taken place?

Mr. Bevins: If I may answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question first, notably, is it not true that the Pembrokeshire Police were asked to do nothing about it, I want to say absolutely flatly that this is wholly without foundation. It is perfectly true that the Pembrokeshire Constabulary were not told for a matter of 48 hours, because it had not been established, within an earlier period than that, whether the mail bags had simply gone astray or whether they had been stolen, but any suggestion that we have not collaborated with the police authorities is entirely false.

Mr. G. Thomas: On the question of security, is it not a fact that there were absolutely no security steps taken when this money was in transit from Haverford west to Carmarthen, and that since the robbery steps are being taken? Is it not also a fact that an official of the right hon. Gentleman's Department has said that the reason why this robbery was not made public was because nobody asked them? Does the Minister wish to confirm that we have to inquire every day whether there has been a robbery? Is: he not aware that if it were not for the B.B.C. in Wales this story would never have come to light? Have we to depend on journalists—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] This is a very important issue. Have we to depend on journalists to reveal to us that robberies have taken place today?

Mr. Bevins: I want to repudiate quite flatly, in dealing with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, that no security precautions were taken on this particular train. As regards publicity, I think the whole House will agree that when a robbery occurs the main thing is to detect the criminals and to recover the money, and the Post Office has to decide, case by case, according to circumstances, whether the issue of a public statement would either promote that end or tend to defeat it. Here, my investigation branch took the view, I believe rightly, that publicity would have hindered the detective operations at work.

Mr. Mason: Is not all this rather deplorable? Do I understand from the Postmaster-General that his Department was specifically responsible for stifling public release of the news of this robbery? Secondly, how general is this policy? The right hon. Gentleman says he does it case by case. Would he indicate how many cases have happened without our knowledge? Thirdly, is it not a fact that the police depend a great deal upon the assistance of the public? So if there had been a public release of the news there would have been a far better chance, probably—a quicker chance—to catch the criminals in this case.

Mr. Bevins: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "stifling" publicity, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that if the Post Office were to give publicity to every one of these cases which occur the newspapers would probably be taking far too much material from the Post Office—

HON. MEMBERS: Oh.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Not every day.

Mr. Bevins: —but I do say with respect to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that the investigation branch of the Post Office, who are experts in these matters, are probably better judges of the value of publicity than they are.

Mr. Mason: Could I ask the right hon. Gentleman, have the criminals in this case been caught? If this complacent attitude of the Postmaster-General continues, is he not aware that soon the

public will lose all faith in the Post Office services?

HON. MEMBERS: Nonsense.

Mr. Bevins: So far the criminals have not been apprehended, but I am hopeful that they will be, and I am hopeful, too, that their apprehension will be promoted and not hindered by the action which the Post Office has taken.

Sir C. Osborne: Apart from the publicity issue, is my right hon. Friend satisfied about the security side, remembering that about £250,000 was lost in the centre of London about a year ago and that no one has been apprehended for that? What with that theft and now this, and the August mail train robbery, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the security precautions are as good as they ought to be in his Department?

Mr. Bevins: I have no exact figure, but I should say that during the four years I have been the Post Office Minister the expenditure on precautions both in Crown post offices and in respect of money in transit has been roughly trebled.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, notwithstanding his claim that there was a security guard on this train, nobody travelled in this mail van with this money, and that this particular money was marked specially as a parcel of high value? Is he aware that there were keys to the mail van all the way up the line and that post offices were entitled to put mailbags in that van? How can he say with confidence that Post Office security services are proficient in conditions of that nature?

Mr. Bevins: I am certainly not going to comment on detailed points given by the hon. Member. It would be inimical to the best interests of the Post Office if I divulged what our precautions are.

Mr. Callaghan: Could the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the time it took to establish that the theft had taken place? Did it really take 48 hours for the Post Office to be sure they had not got the bags in their possession?

Mr. Bevins: I have said quite freely to the House that the Pembrokeshire Police were not informed for 48 hours—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] That


was so because these mail bags so often are misdirected. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I would ask the House to keep some sense of proportion about this. When one considers the millions and millions of mailbags that are in transit throughout the country it is inevitable that now and again the odd mailbag will be misdirected, and it is important that we should check on that before we start bringing the police on to the scene.

Mr. G. Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I propose to raise the matter—

Mr. F. Harris: They are very honest in Wales.

Mr. Thomas: —the English probably took it—on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

MAJOR P. R. CORY, R.A.S.C.

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. FRANK ALLAUN: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the outcome of his inquiry into Major Cory's court-martial; and what proposals he has for remedying procedure to give prisoners a right to bail pending appeal against court-martial decisions.

Mr. DENZIL FREETH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will now publish the conclusions of the review he has made of the issues arising from the court-martial of Major Cory, a constituent of the hon. Member for Basingstoke.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Questions Nos. 56 and 61 together.
Hon. Members will now have had an opportunity of reading the statement on the case of Major Cory.
The House considered whether bail should be granted on Crown Appeal to the House of Lords from the Courts-Martial Appeal Court in the debate on the Courts-Martial Appeal Act, 1951, and doubts as to its appropriateness were expressed on both sides of the House.

But to cater for civilians and such very exceptional cases as where a soldier was about to leave the Army this very limited provision was allowed to stand.
Subsequently, in 1960, the House, in the Administration of Justice Act, 1960, confined the grant of bail by the Courts-Martial Appeal Court to certain civilians.
On our view of this case as set out in paragraph 37 of the statement, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I do not consider that a need for the provision of bail has been revealed by this case.

Mr. Allaun: While thanking the Minister for his courtesy in giving Hon. Members a chance to study his statement, may I ask whether it is not a travesty of justice that it took 17 months before Major Cory's case came to appeal, by which time he had served his sentence? Are there not similar cases? Why should not a Service man have the same right as a civilian to bail pending appeal? What are the difficulties which the Minister refers to in his statement? Surely they do not outweigh the great injustice which has been done. If legislation is needed, why not have it?

Mr. Ramsden: This case, as the report states, involved an exceptional combination of circumstances. I do not believe that this combination of circumstances, exceptional and regrettable as it was, vitiates the present system, which has been debated and confirmed by the House. On both sides of the House doubt has been expressed about the appropriateness of bail in Service conditions. As I have told the hon. Member, legislation would be required to remedy the matter.

Mr. Freeth: While thanking my right hon. Friend for having put a statement of the results of the review in yesterday's HANSARD, may I ask, first, whether he is not aware that the method of undertaking that review was wholly unsatisfactory in that neither my constituent, nor his legal advisers in Kenya, nor his legal advisers in London, were permitted to give any further evidence to either my right hon. Friend or the Lord Chancellor?
Secondly, is my right hon. Friend not aware that my constituent has had his military career ruined through an act of gross injustice, that he has had to


incur heavy legal debts over the last three years, that he has served six months' imprisonment and two months' close detention, all for a crime of which he has been found not guilty, and that now the War Office is suggesting awarding him compensation equivalent only to what he would get if he went out under a "golden bowler" scheme, and without any compensation whatever for the mental anguish, for the imprisonment, for the gross injustice and for the ruining of his career?

Mr. Ramsden: I cannot accept what my hon. Friend has said about the basis for the compensation. The basis for the compensation was in consideration of the findings of the Courts-Martial Appeal Court.
With regard to my hon. Friend's first point, on the question of representations by Major Cory's solicitors in the course of the determination of the compensation, the point at issue was not a legal one such as could be argued between the parties, but the determination of a discretionery ex gratia payment on which I was seeking independent advice.

Mr. J. Morris: Would the right hon. Gentleman now agree that because of the colossal blunders in this case his Department comes out in a very bad light indeed? With regard to the preparation of the prosecution, is he satisfied that the proper legal staff was available to prepare the case? Also, is it not true that the only available professionally qualified accountant in the whole of the command was a National Service corporal? Will the right hon. Gentleman now reconsider the recommendation of the eighth Report of the Estimates Committee that there should be qualified staff available, a recommendation which was rejected by the then Secretary of State in the debate on 18th December, 1962?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman examine the procedure of the Judge Advocate General in giving advice to the Army Council on conditions? In view of the advice given, is it not astonishing that at that stage it was not discovered that something was radically wrong. Will he publish the advice?
Lastly, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the trial had to last 43 days

and why no shorthand writers were available or used? Having regard to the unsatisfactory summing up and the comments of the Court of Appeal, what assurance can we have that there will be no repetition of this sort of thing in the future?

Mr. Ramsden: Matters concerning the Judge Advocate General's Department are for my noble and learned Friend and not for me. The hon. Gentleman referred to the conduct of the prosecution. I think it fair to point out to the House that the Courts-Martial Appeal Court said that the prosecution was conducted with skill and fairness. I have nowhere seen any imputation on the quality of the work by Corporal Sleep, whether in the preparation of the accounts or in his evidence.
The hon. Gentleman said that there were no shorthand writers available. Shorthand writers were available, but the pace of the trial was, in part, determined by the meticulousness of the Judge Advocate, who made a full note in his own hand of the proceedings, which enabled them to be available to him at an earlier stage than a transcript would have been, but this, naturally, contributed to the increased length of the trial.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are most grateful to him for the candour of his statement published in yesterday's HANSARD, and for having taken steps to make it available before Questions came to be answered today?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a really astonishing tale of muddle in which a very large, although probably inadequate, sum of public money has been wasted? Is he doing anything about the Judge Advocate at this trial, who seems to have put up a terrible performance?
Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman doing anything about the Judge Advocate's Department here with his noble and learned Friend? After all, the Courts-Martial Appeal Court is a back stop, and, if one has a look at the proceedings, this was a terribly loose ball ever to have been allowed to get anywhere near a back stop.

Mr. Ramsden: I understand that the Judge Advocate concerned has since been


seriously ill and, on the advice of his doctors, has informed my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor that he will not be able to sit again as Judge Advocate and proposes to seek transfer to other duties when he has fully recovered his health. I will look into the other points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Grimond: Could the right hon. Gentleman be more specific on one point? Is it true, as alleged by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Freeth), that in the compensation there is no element for the distress or damage suffered by this officer?

Mr. Ramsden: No, Sir.

Hon. Members: What does that mean?

Mr. Ramsden: It is not true that there is no element for the distress suffered and the other circumstances mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Freeth).

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In view of the distressing things that have been discovered as a result of the case, will my right hon. Friend undertake to do two things? First, will he see that a full review is carried out of the rules of procedure in so far as they concern questions of how the evidence is recorded in courts-martial?
Secondly, will he also do his best to clarify in the public mind the position of the Judge Advocate General? Is it not correct to say that he is not an Army officer at all in the true sense of the word, but that the word "General", which is attached to the title, as it so often is, is most misleading in the public mind?

Mr. Ramsden: It is true that responsibility for this case lies in two places—with the War Office and with the Judge Advocate General's Department. As to what we shall do to prevent this kind of thing happening again, we shall set out in greater detail the regulations covering the responsibilities of commanding officers and their superior headquarters in cases where commanding officers themselves choose to operate non-public funds instead of delegating the day-to-day administration to subordinates, and we shall draw attention to the dangers which may

come with the use of long charge sheets and to the desirability of restricting the issues which are to be tried by court-martial. I am prepared to discuss with my noble and learned Friend shortening the period of 60 days allowed for the submission of an appeal to the Army Council.

Mr. Freeth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's reply in relation to his and the Official Referee's treatment of my constituent, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

LIBRARY (DEPOSIT OF DOCUMENTS)

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has a point of order which I understand he wishes to raise with me.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Monday, when I was critical of the Attorney-General, I notified the House that I would put the transcript in the Library so that right hon. and HON. MEMBERS would have the opportunity of reading his defence and his evidence in full. I should myself have thought it most unfair to say what I did say about him unless I had been in a position to make the whole of his defence available to right hon. and Hon. Members.
I duly placed the transcript in the Library and I believe that some HON. MEMBERS have had the opportunity of reading it. But, just before Question Time today, I was informed that it had been removed by your order, Sir. In my submission, in circumstances such as this, the Library ought to be able to be a depository where Hon. Members can read documents which may be, and undoubtedly are in the circumstances, of interest to them, and it is extremely unfair on the Attorney-General that his defence should no longer be available for Hon. Members to read.

Mr. Speaker: I am not seeking to reprove the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—and I know that he will not think that I am doing so—when I say that I regret that,


before making the speech in which he announced that he proposed to deposit some documents in the Library, he did not consult me. His failure to do so gave us no opportunity to warn him that to do so would involve a direct departure from our practice and rules in the matter and, therefore, in directing, as I did, that when he put the documents in the Library they must be sent back to him—I do not know whether they have reached him yet, but they are on the way—I was following strictly the practice and precedents set by my predecessors.
If the House wants to alter this practice, that is a different matter. My only reason for having the document returned to the hon. and learned Member was the practice of the House, and I believe that there is very good reason for maintaining that practice.

Mr. Paget: I do not know whether you can give me any advice, Mr. Speaker. I should have thought that, in all the circumstances, it was highly desirable that Hon. Members who wanted to see the Attorney-General's defence should have the opportunity of doing so. If I cannot put it in the Library, is there any other convenient place in the House?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot undertake a geographical survey of the House, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman will give me time I will consider what method might be adopted in the circumstances. I am, frankly, not anxious, without the direction of the House, to break the practice of the House, which I believe to be useful.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Would it be proper for the Attorney-General himself to place this transcript, or arrange for it to be placed, in the Library, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: I would like time to consider that. This is not Government business. I do not think that any Ministerial responsibility attaches to the proceedings in question. I believe that we are dealing, in fact, with an unofficial document. That is my present opinion, but I would like time for further consideration.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Transcripts of trials have been placed from time to

time in the Library, although I do not know by what means.

Mr. Speaker: That is a slightly different case. There would be certain Ministerial responsibility in some sense, vesting in the Lord Chancellor. The case of these documents is rather different.

Mr. Paget: Since the Attorney-General is a Minister of the Crown, perhaps he would like to lay documents, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: I think that that is rather like the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker).

Mr. Doughty: Is it not most unusual and improper to try to obtain publicity for a private inquiry by a professional body dealing with a professional man by putting such a document in a place where it can be read?

Mr. Speaker: That cannot be a matter for me. I am concerned only with the practice of the House.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE (WHITE PAPER)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Reginald Maudling): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on public expenditure.
In the debate on the Address I gave some figures illustrating the prospective growth of public expenditure on the basis of the Government's policies and programmes, and I undertook to consider amplifying them in a White Paper. This I have now done, and a White Paper on Public Expenditure in 1963–64 and 1967–68 will be available in the Vote Office at 4 p.m. today.
The White Paper covers, in addition to central Government expenditure, local government capital and current expenditure, the gross outgoings of National Insurance funds and investment expenditure by nationalised industries and public corporations.
The figures are grouped under main headings. They compare an estimate for 1963–64 with an approximate calculation of the prospective figures for


1967–68 at constant prices and on the basis of present policies. They will be seen to fall in line with the 4 per cent. economic growth target accepted by the Government and the other members of the National Economic Development Council.

Mr. Callaghan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for joining the ranks of the long-range forecasters. Will he tell us the total increase proposed for 1967–68 as compared with 1963–64? Do these forecasts include items such as defence, agricultural subsidies and, for example, part of the cost of implementing the Robbins Report? Can we identify what items of Government expenditure are included or excluded by looking at the figures?
As the right hon. Gentleman correctly says, these increases are possible on the basis of a 4 per cent. growth rate. What changes are proposed in Government policy in view of the fact that we have had a 4 per cent. growth rate for only four out of the last twelve years?

Mr. Maudling: The figures cover defence as a specific heading, and agricultural subsidies are also dealt with. The effects of the Robbins and Newsom Reports are also included. The total is certainly included and I hope that in due course the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will give us his total, too. He need not be too gloomy about the 4 per cent. growth rate.

Mr. Callaghan: As it is the key figure, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is now the total for 1968?

Mr. Maudling: It would be a mistake to give any figures from the White Paper until all are available, but the hon. Gentleman will find that total expenditure between 1963–64 and 1967–68 advances by roughly 4 per cent. per annum in real terms.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: While thanking my right hon. Friend for what will obviously be most desirable Christmas reading, may I ask him whether his figures include estimates of the gross national product, so that even the most ignorant among us can judge what proportion of the gross national income is to be spent by Her Majesty's Government in future years?

Mr. Madling: In the White Paper we have given figures, as a percentage of the gross national product, of what has been taken by public expenditure in recent years. What we are giving for the future is our calculation of the increase in public expenditure of all kinds, in real terms, and if the gross national product expands by the 4 per cent. target which we have accepted, the proportion will, of course, remain roughly the same. There is a footnote on one page to cover this.

Mr. Grimond: Is there any indication in the White Paper of what might be the effect of the already agreed increases in incomes, salaries, wages, and so on?

Mr. Maulding: No, Sir. The White Paper does not cover that. But I would say that the most prominent threat to the realisation of these programmes, to which we all attach importance, is the rate at which incomes are expanding at the moment.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will give great satisfaction to members of the Estimate Committee, whose recommendations of some years ago are now being carried out?

Mr. Maulding: I am always happy to give satisfaction to my hon. Friends and to Hon. Members from both sides of the House who serve on the Estimates Committee.

Dr. Bray: To what extent are these estimates being taken into consideration by Departments in the preparation of their Estimates for next year? Will the right hon. Gentleman provide the House with an early opportunity to debate the White Paper?

Mr. Maudling: The question of a debate is for my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. The figures are estimates for 1963–64, but one clearly cannot give estimates in the same concrete form for 1967–68. The latter figures are calculations which are the best we can make on our current knowledge of the amount of real resources needed to meet these programmes.

Sir C. Osborne: Since these vast increases of expenditure are certain and definite and a 4 per cent. increase in


national productivity is uncertain, unknown and not definite, can my right hon. Friend assure us that he has reasonable evidence that this great increase in expenditure will not result in further inflation?

Mr. Maudling: I have no doubt that it is within the capacity of our economy to achieve the 4 per cent. growth rate at which we are aiming, but this depends not on the Government alone, but on Government, management and unions together. Unless there is a combined effort towards this mutual objective, we shall not succeed.

Mr. H. Wilson: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has said what can be achieved over the next three or four years in Government expenditure, given a 4 per cent. growth rate—and the whole House welcomes the statement—and as presumably the Government accepted the idea of a 4 per cent. growth rate quite a time ago, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he and his predecessors could not have said two years ago that these programmes could have been started then?

Mr. Maudling: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to observe the progress towards these programmes which has been made during the last two years.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only have we observed what has been done in 1963, but that we forecast that after three years of stagnation there would be a boom in 1963? Would he like to turn up the HANSARD in which we made this forecast? Will he now tell us why it has taken so long to get these very necessary and desirable programmes and why the Government should not have aimed at a 4 per cent. growth rate in earlier years, either in this or in the two previous Parliaments?

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman's previous speeches always make agreeable and often profitable reading, but I have observed that on more than one occasion recently he has himself announced targets which we have already achieved.

Orders of the Day — RATING (INTERIM RELIEF) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.55 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir K. Joseph): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House will be relieved that on this occasion I am presenting a very short Bill. This, as its Title proclaims, is strictly an interim Measure. It is intended to bring some relief to areas and individuals hard hit by revaluation during the time while the wider issues involved in the whole of rating are being considered. A revaluation which brought the assessment of house property in one jump from a 1939, or a pre-war, valuation up to current 1963 values inevitably meant big changes in assessments for individual householders. However, the House will remember that at the same time as this happened the Government legislated to remove the concession which throughout this period had been available to industry.
As a result of these simultaneous movements, householders, as a group, did not come out of revaluation badly. Householders' share of the total expenditure falling on rates and rate-deficiency grants combined is virtually the same as it was before revaluation. However, as HON. MEMBERS will be quick to tell me, averages can conceal a great deal of variation. Some individual householders have found themselves bearing a larger share of the local rate burden, while others have found themselves bearing a smaller share.
As a result of what must appear to be an apparently haphazard movement of the share of the burden, there has been added force to the widespread charge that the rating system is at present unfair. It is said, and said widely, that rates cause hardship to many people of limited means, and the fear that this hardship will increase grows as people become aware of the rising trend—the inevitably rising trend in view of the


policies of both sides of the House—of local government expenditure. It is commonly feared that under the present system local government expenditure will bear increasingly hardly on those least able to bear the burden.
As a result of these fears, there have been a number of suggestions for giving local government new sources of revenue. There have been only too many suggestions to increase assistance from the taxpayer. There have been a number of proposals to transfer part of the costs of local government from the ratepayer to the Exchequer. All these suggestions and these fears are of prime importance to the citizen himself and to local and central government. In the light of the revaluations, the first step was clearly to find out the precise facts.
We know—and as part of the argument, but only as part, I must again refer to averages—that the average householder in England and Wales will be paying rather more than £30 a year this year, which is about 11s. 6d. a week, in rates. We know that at one extreme there are 13 rating areas where the average householder pays less than £13 a year, about 5s. a week, and at the other extreme there are four rating areas where the average householder pays more than £78 a year, just more than 30s. a week. All those four areas are in the County of London. We know very little about what lies behind the averages and still less about the means of those who are called upon to pay; the circumstances in which the people live who are called on to bear these rising burdens.
I wish to emphasise that, with the greatest good will in the world, it would have been absolutely impossible to have investigated before revaluation the effects of revaluation on all the 15 million householders involved. Not even a battery of computers could have tackled the large range of variables with which we were confronted. It was not known until the last days before the new rate call was made what the rate call in each area would be. That was only one of the variables. It was not known until that time what the precept made on district councils would be, and it was not known until a few months before what the new valuation assessment would be. Nor was it known

until then what the general grant would be.
The combination of all these variables, and the compressed timetable which was necessarily involved, made it absolutely impossible to anticipate the results. We come to the position, therefore, that there have been a number of complaints, and that there is no doubt that there has been a degree of hardship in a number of cases; that we know the averages but that we do not know the facts behind those averages. As a result of all this, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I last May appointed a committee, under Professor Allen,
to assess the impact of rates on householders in different income groups in different parts of Great Britain, with special regard to any circumstances likely to give rise to hardship.
The object was to get at the facts. The Government also responded to the widespread wish that the method of sharing the rising cost of local government expenditure between the ratepayer and the taxpayer should be looked at afresh. The Government have decided, therefore, to put in hand next year a comprehensive review of the financial relationship between central and local government and of the rating system. This decision was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary some months ago.
I see from the expression on the face of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) that he is preparing to make yet another speech of the selective type in which he will, no doubt, pick out some of the suggestions that have been made by Hon. Members opposite in recent debates and taunt me and the Government with them. It is easy enough to pick some suggestions out of the battery of those that have been made and say that the Government are now adopting them. I would remind the House that in this case—and I do not want to make a polemical speech—the Government have had the courage to bring the basis of valuation up to date.
This has needed a considerable amount of determination and I am sure that the House will agree that this was the right thing to have done. However, it is the Government's desire to mitigate and cushion any resultant hardship and to reconsider the situation in the light


of the facts which have emerged. AH that the Opposition have been able to do all along is to urge an inquiry while, at the same time, flinching from the idea of bringing valuation up to date.

Mr. J. T. Price: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of our deliberations on the Rating and Valuation Bill? I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered that Measure upstairs for several months. I can assure the Minister that all the results that have now flowed forth were laid at the feet of the Government during our debates at that time. The Government were warned then of what would happen. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Home Secretary, but who was then in charge of the Bill, promised to take special steps to meet hardship where there was an increase in rates of over 30 per cent. All this is on the record and the right hon. Gentleman can read it in the Official Report.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member entitled to make a speech in the middle of a speech being made by my right hon. Friend, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member was coming to the point when the use of an intervention was being abused.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) voted against the Bill which has led to revaluation, because he and his hon. Friends did not have the courage to modernise this country in rates, as in anything else.
In the review which the Government are undertaking and which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, the facts produced by the Allen Committee will be highly relevant, but in the view of the Government it would not be right to delay all action until these facts and the results of the review become available. In view of the hardship that has been caused in some cases by exceptional rate increases resulting from revaluation, we do not believe that it would be right to wait until this comprehensive review is completed. The review is bound to take time.
The Allen Committee, which has shown the greatest energy has had to mount the necessary field survey and will need time to digest the results of its investigations. The Committee will not be reporting before the early summer at the earliest, and then time will be needed for the review to be completed, after which further time will be needed for legislation to be prepared—if legislation is thought to be necessary.
It must, therefore, be a considerable time before any general result will be achieved by the combination of the Allen Committee and the Government's review. Since the Government admit that there is hardship in some cases, a delay of action until the review has been completed would not be right. On the other hand, I hope that HON. MEMBERS will agree that since we have set up the Allen Committee to establish the facts of hardship, it would be folly for us now to try to define hardship itself. We must devise a Measure which will bring relief without prejudging the results of the Allen Committee and the review. That is why the Bill is an interim Measure only.
The Bill does two things. First, it provides for grants to rating authorities based on the proportion of persons over 65 years of age in the local population. Secondly, it empowers local authorities to remit, in cases of hardship, the exceptional increases in domestic rate bills caused by revaluation, and it provides extra grants to enable them to do so. Unfortunately, it is not possible for the Government to direct general grant to individuals who are in difficulty. We must reach this objective in two stages: first, do what we can to direct grant to those areas which are likely to contain the majority of people who find themselves in difficulty; and, secondly, leave it to the local authority to use its own discretion to help those who are suffering hardship.

Mr. John Morris: Would the Minister not agree that having to make decisions in this matter is placing a very heavy burden on local authorities?

Sir K. Joseph: I shall come to that point.
In deciding on the grant, I have chosen a grant based in the proportion of old


people, for it seems to the Government that the areas in which rating increases have been the severest have generally been those with a high proportion of elderly living in them. Such areas come readily to mind. They tend most frequently to be the seaside towns and other areas to which people have retired; areas in which there is not a great deal of industry to share the rising local government expenditure. This limits the number of areas from which the majority of complaints have been coming, but judging from my correspondence, it is in such areas that cases of hardship are most likely to arise.

Several Hon. Members: rose

Sir K. Joseph: HON. MEMBERS opposite must face the fact that they have been clamouring for the Government to do something to relieve hardship. All I am saying is that I must judge from my postbag where the hardship is. The object of the Bill is to deal, on an interim basis, with hardship.

Mr. Marcus Lipton (Brixton): Can the Minister explain why all the hardship—in the South Coast areas and health resorts—has been taking place in areas which are represented by Tory HON. MEMBERS? Does this not seem odd?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member is seeking to prejudge the Allen Committee's Report. We must wait for that Committee to define hardship. From the evidence reaching me I can say that the Bill will enable the local authorities concerned—and they will not be only in the areas of the South Coast or in pleasure resorts—to have discretionary powers to deal with hardship.
The form of grant chosen ensures that of the available money more will go to the areas with most old people. As regards relief for the individual, the Bill empowers rating authorities to remit in cases of hardship what I might call the extraordinary increase in rate bills due to revaluation. This is defined in the Bill as the difference between the 1962–63 rates—that is the rates in the last pre-revaluation year—increased by 25 per cent., with a minimum of £5 increase—and the rates in the next year, 1964–65, which is the next rating year after the passage of the Bill.
The amount remitted in any one year may not exceed the difference between these two figures, and there can be no remission unless there has been an increase of at least 25 per cent. over the two years. These limitations are intended, as I say, to isolate the extraordinary increases falling on individual householders due to revaluation.
The House will see that the Bill does not seek to define hardship, but leaves it to the local authorities to assess in the light of the resources and needs of the household concerned. I recognise that this may mean that householders in similar circumstances in different areas may fare differently, but until the Allen Committee has done its job it seems to me that it would be premature to seek to define hardship or the circumstances that give rise to it. I shall, however, try to give some guidance for the interim period in what I shall say in a moment.
Some will argue that relief from rates should be granted automatically—for instance, to old people; others, that relief should be linked with income—presumably with allowances for commitments of different sorts. These matters we shall have to study when the Allen Committee's Report is available; in the meantime, I am sure that we can rely on the sympathy and good sense of local authorities.
Doubts have been expressed about the ability of local authorities to decide when relief is justified—and here I come to the point put to me by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris). They will certainly have an invidious task, but it is one that their associations have accepted as inevitable in a Measure of this interim nature. Nor should it be supposed that local authorities are complete novices in this field. Rating authorities are also housing authorities and, as such, have a considerable experience in operating rent rebate schemes admittedly only for local authority houses.
I do not draw a complete analogy. True, in the operation of rent rebate schemes, they can rely on the regular contacts between rent collectors and local authority tenants, whereas in the consideration of rate rebates they will have to deal with a far wider section of society that local authority tenants alone. They will have to deal also with


private tenants, owner-occupiers and private landlords—but the analogy still has some force.
I hope, at any rate, that in handling this discretion on rates that has been given them as an interim Measure, local authorities will adopt many of the practices followed by the most enlightened authorities in dealing with their rent rebate schemes. I am here particularly stressing that many authorities in dealing with rent rebates take great care to safeguard the anonymity of the applicant for a rent rebate. They deal with the application by using a code number instead of a name, so that the individual applying for rent rebate, in that case—or for a rate concession, in this case—can be sure that his or her privacy will be safeguarded. I commend that practice to the rating authorities.
Some people will have made a proposal for the reduction of their rating assessment and will not have had the result of their appeal, and it would be proper here to give them some advice. The Government's view is that nobody should be deterred from making an application for rate relief under the Bill because he has already made a proposal for reduction of assessment—the two are entirely separate. It is true that if a proposal has been made in the first six months of 1963–64, the ratepayer is ordinarily entitled to withhold half the difference between his 1962–63 rates and those for the current year, but this is only a temporary easement until the proposal is settled and, if no reduction results, the ratepayer may have substantial arrears to meet immediately.
The Bill assumes that rating authorities will grant relief despite an outstanding proposal, and Clauses 4(2) and 6(3) are included with precisely that point in mind. Thus, under Clause 4(2), a rating authority that has granted relief while a proposal is outstanding is required to review the relief if the proposal succeeds and, in adjusting rates for the reduction in rateable value, to take account of any change in the amount of relief. While, under Clause 6(3), provision is made to reduce by the amount of relief the amount of rates that can be temporarily withheld under the 1955 Act.
Hon. Members may feel that I should go a little further in guidance to local

authorities on their use of discretion. I would add only this. People who benefit from National Assistance are already covered against increases in rates. I would expect, therefore, that most of those who receive remissions will be retired people, or other people on incomes that are above, but not so far above, the National Assistance level, and who cannot meet a steep increase in rates without denying themselves what have come to be regarded as necessities. There will be others who suffer hardship, although their means are not so restricted, because it takes time to adjust their pattern of spending to their means. I do not think that I can go further than that in advance of the Allen Committee's Report.
For the provisions of the Bill to affect next year's rates, it will be necessary for local authorities to take them into account when framing their budgets early in the coming year. If the House gives the Bill its Second Reading, I intend to invite local authorities to do this.
That is all I want to say by way of general introduction before turning to the Bill itself. To sum up, the purpose of the Bill is simply to give a measure of relief pending consideration of the Allen Report and of the outcome of next year's review. It is not a Bill to reform the rating system or to remodel the basis of local government finance.
I do not propose to dwell too long on the details of the Bill itself, because I know that, when he winds up the debate, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with questions raised in the debate, but I should like to draw attention to one or two salient points in the Clauses.
Clause 1 is, I think, simple to understand. It concentrates about £6 million on grants to rating areas with higher proportions of elderly people. This means that areas with well below the average number of elderly—that is, about 119 per 1,000—will get no grant, while those with the highest proportions will get some very useful help, though still modest in total. For example, on the 1961 figures, some of the retirement areas on the South Coast, where householders have been hard hit by revaluation and increases in expenditure since 1962–63, will get benefit


amounting to over a 4d. rate, and between 30s. and 42s. a year for the average householder. Budleigh Salterton, Sidmouth, Bexhill and Worthing are four places that will benefit by that order of help.
On Clause 1, I would only draw attention to the last 13 words of subsection (2). The effect of those 13 words is that the grant paid to a rating area is retained there for the benefit of the local ratepayers, and no part is passed on through the precept to the county at large or any other precepting authority.
Clause 2 enables the rating authority to increase relief—

Mr. Charles Mapp: Before the Minister leaves Clause 1, will he tell the House why the Clause refers to people beyond the age of 65 rather than, as in so many other Bills, 65 and upwards?

Sir K. Joseph: The effect is exactly the same. It is over the age of 65. The hon. Gentleman may have a Committee point, but I do not think that he has any point of substance.

Mr. Mapp: A person would not be included in the statistics covered by the Bill until he had reached his 66th birthday, whereas in all other legislation the 65th birthday is the relevant factor.

Sir K. Joseph: This is certainly not the intention. The hon. Member may have a good Committee point, but I think that he is wrong.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned some examples of authorities which will benefit. Could he confirm a report which has appeared in one of the papers that the City of London is one of the beneficiaries under Clause 1?

Sir K. Joseph: I have not the figures for all the authorities in mind. I have not seen that report and I cannot confirm it.
Clause 2 of the Bill enables a rating authority to grant relief to individual householders if two conditions are satisfied. The first is that between 1962–63 and 1964–65, the two years, the rates on the dwelling must have increased by more than one-quarter or by £5, if that is the greater. The one-quarter test will

be the decisive one in the majority of cases. Anybody who paid £20 in rates in 1962–63, when the national average payment was £27 12s., will pass the £5 test if he passes the one-quarter test. I do not know how many dwellings will pass it. Indeed, nobody can know until the rate call for next year has been sent out and the rates have been made.
The other condition, that the rating authority must be satisfied that the increase in the level of rates since 1962–63 will cause hardship to the ratepayers, I have already referred to. There is little in the rest of the Clause that requires comment at this stage but I might perhaps draw attention to the two methods of affording relief under Clause 2(2).
In the cases covered by Clause 2(2,a) the residential occupier is a person who will be paying rates direct to the rating authority, and the obvious way of affording him relief is that provided by the Clause—the remission or refund of part of any rate or instalment of rate. The cases covered by paragraph (b) are those where the residential occupier pays rates indirectly, perhaps as part of an inclusive rent, or to the landlord as collector for the rating authority. The method to be used here is that of direct payments by the authority to the residential occupier. This is a method which I recognise at once will not necessarily commend itself to rating authorities. They will have no direct money dealings with the occupier and it will be relatively expensive administratively to arrange the payments under suitable safeguards.
On the other hand, there are considerations for adopting this relatively unorthodox course which in my view are compelling. First, in the case of controlled tenancies it would be necessary to amend the Rent Acts to ensure that any relief allowed through the landlord would reach the tenant. Secondly, in other cases where an inclusive rent is paid it might be impracticable to ensure that the relief got to and stayed with the residential occupier without a very complex series of Clauses. I suggest that the most direct and in the long run the simplest method is for the rating authority to make direct payments to the residential occupier in cases covered by Clause 2(2,b).
Clause 3 merely sets out the methods to be used in calculating rates for various


years and rate periods for the purposes of Clause 2. Clause 4 contains provisions for varying or ending relief on a change of circumstances and for the adjustment of rate payments in that connection.
Clause 5 makes provision for Exchequer grants towards the cost of relief given under Clause 2. The rate of grant is to be 50 per cent. on the first 3 per cent. of gross rate income remitted, and 66⅔ per cent. on any amount in excess of 3 per cent. I would not like to give examples of the way that the Clause might work, because to do so it would be necessary to know the amount of relief likely to be granted by the authority chosen as an example, but from the various pointers which have reached me, and from correspondence and representations made from time to time by the rating authorities, I would expect that very few of them would reach the 3 per cent. limit.
Speaking very generally again, I would expect that the authorities which do exceed the 3 per cent. limit will be for the most part those with a large proportion of elderly people. People living on fairly small fixed incomes just above the National Assistance level are likely to form a large proportion of those granted relief. The authorities containing the largest proportion of elderly people will be, by hypothesis, the very authorities which will receive the largest share of grant under Clause 1. In many cases, therefore, Clause 1 is likely at least to make good any local increase in rates to meet relief under Clause 2.
This effect is made all the more likely by the provisions of Clause 6(2), the practical effect of which is to secure that the net cost to the rating authority of relief granted under Clause 2, after allowing for grant under Clause 5, is shared between the rating area and the areas of any other authority for which the rating authority is levying a rate. To put it in a nutshell, a rating authority receives grant under Clause 1 and holds it entirely for itself without having to pass any of it on by way of precept to the precepting authority, whereas under Clause 6(2) the rating authority is able to share any burden that remains on its ratepayers, due to the difference between

the total cost of remission under Clause 2 and grant under Clause 5, with all the other authorities who make a precept. I hope, therefore, that the net effect of both provisions will be to minimise the burden, if any, remaining on those ratepayers who do not get remission in areas where the amount of remission is relatively heavy.
Clause 6(1) has the effect of preventing relief under the Bill from affecting the rate-deficiency grant percentages. I think that it is right to do this, especially since the relief is intended only as an interim measure.
I do not think that other Clauses need explanation at this stage. I hope that I have said enough to explain the general purposes of this interim Measure, and the interim and transitional part which it plays in the process which the Government are now undertaking; first, by way of the Allen Committee, followed by a general review, bearing in mind the results of revaluation, of the division of the rising local authority expenditure between ratepayer and taxpayer. Although this is a modest and interim Measure I believe it to be a useful one and I commend it to the House.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: We are all indebted to the Minister for his clear exposition of the Bill. He said that some of the later Clauses did not call for explanation at this stage. I agree with him about "this stage", but they will call for a good deal of explanation later. Indeed, some of them could be more briefly written if mathematical symbols could have been applied throughout. [Laughter.] This is seriously so, and if the Minister undertakes the exercise of writing the later Clauses in algebraic form he will find that they will take up much less space. We shall be examining these matters, no doubt with interest, in Committee later.
This is an interim Bill to relieve hardship, and the hardship springs from the combination of various causes. One is that mentioned by the Minister when he spoke of the inevitably rising trend of local expenditure. This is basically the real fact that we are struggling with—that the nation is demanding a wider range of local government services, that


the people who do this service could not in justice be excluded from wage and salary increases which other people have, and that the total amount of money which a local authority must raise is bound to increase. This is a fact which has been known for some time.
It is the combination of this with the fact that the general trend of Government policy has not been to give local authorities added help from the Exchequer, in view of this inevitable trend to greater total expenditure by the local authorities, and added finally to revaluation—all these things have introduced the hardship.
The Minister was at some pains to point cut that the exact effects of revaluation alone would have been very difficult to predict in advance. I think that we may accept that. What we cannot accept is that the other factors which would lead to hardship were unpredictable. It was known when the Rating and Valuation Act, 1961, was introduced that we were in a period of steadily rising local expenditure. The view that there ought to be a greater measure of Exchequer grant to meet that expenditure had been frequently expressed on this side of the House and rejected on that. We are, therefore, entitled to point out that we did draw the attention of the Minister's predecessor to the danger that a situation of this kind was bound to develop.
What was the proper step to take? Surely, it was, certainly by the time the 1961 Act was introduced, if not earlier, to set up an inquiry into the relationship between central and local government finance. That was exactly what we asked for on the Second Reading of the Rating and Valuation Bill. The Government could have got our support to that Second Reading if they had been prepared to set up such an inquiry, but they were not so prepared. I mention this because the Minister reproached us with not being prepared to give unconditional support to the Second Reading of that Bill and because he spoke of the Government's "courage" in introducing the revaluation.
In the first place, the Minister will remember that it was not the 1961 Act which actually caused the revaluation; it was already predetermined by earlier legislation. In the second place, I do not

greatly admire the use of the word "courage" in this connection. The courage shown by members of the party opposite in inflicting hardships on people poorer than themselves has been well known on a number of occasions, and it is not a particularly creditable characteristic. As far back as the Second Reading of the 1961 Act, therefore, we urged that an inquiry into the relationship between central and local government finance should be instituted.
To continue the story of the background to this Bill, during the passage of the 1961 Bill through Committee, the Government were repeatedly told that it would lead to hardship and inequity between individuals but the only powers and provisions taken in that Measure were to operate if, in a whole rating area, the extra amount which had to be raised as a result of revaluation as a whole exceeded a prescribed figure. It was fairly easy for the Government to demonstrate afterwards that that condition had never been fulfilled in any particular county. However, the fact that it had never been fulfilled in that way did not preclude the circumstance that individuals in many parts of the country had found the amount which they had to pay shooting up as a result of revaluation alone by more than the 30 per cent. which was talked about in 1961. But no steps were taken at the time to deal with that possibility of individual hardship, and this is why we are having to consider the situation again now.
I add by way of background that it was not only on the Second Reading of the 1961 Measure that we on this side drew attention to the need for an inquiry into the relationship between central and local government finance. We did it also in a Motion which we moved in the House on 25th February, 1960. Later, there was a Motion with which the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith) was concerned. This was debated for some time, and, when it became apparent that the Government were not prepared to accept it, Hon. Members opposite proceeded to talk it out so as to avoid the embarrassment of a decision one way or another.
From several quarters, therefore, it was made clear to the Government that, sooner or later, something would have


to be done about the individual hardships arising not only from revaluation, but from the combination of revaluation and the fact that the relationship between central and local government finance was not satisfactory and called for review.
However, the Conservative Party retained its view that such an inquiry was not necessary. I quote from "Pocket Politics", issued by the Conservative Central Office in January this year:
It is surely only sensible to wait and see how this works out before considering an inquiry into the whole rating system.
For nine months, it waited and saw. By that time, a number of HON. MEMBERS opposite from seaside constituencies had helped them to see.

Sir K. Joseph: It was not nine months.

Mr. M. Stewart: Yes, from January to October, 1963, when the Chief Secretary made a pronouncement. Speaking at Blackpool, he said:
I think it is clear that the time is now ripe for a searching review of the relations between general and local government expenditure…

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is not being precise here. The time for judging how things have gone was after the revaluation and the rate call. The only delay here is from about May to the time when my right hon. Friend spoke in October.

Mr. Stewart: The Minister has not followed what I was saying. The point at issue here is not only the effect of revaluation, but the combination of that with the rising level of local government expenditure as a whole and the unsatisfactory relationship between central and local government finance. That is what we were pointing out to him years ago and what the Chief Secretary said, in October, 1963, ought to be inquired into.
The Chief Secretary was not talking just about the effect of revaluation. He spoke of
a searching review of the relations between general and local government expenditure….We will also review the rating system itself…
Once again, there is this gap of two or three years between the time when we say something ought to be done and the time when a member of the Govern-

ment—sometimes using the very phrases, "relations between central and local government expenditure", and so on—at last admits that it must be done.
Now, of course, we have what is, to put it frankly, a makeshift as well as an interim piece of legislation. If one chose to be puritanical and austere about it, as I see the leading articles in The Times are—though its one constructive suggestion for handling the matter does not seem to be much sounder than anything in the Bill—one could say that there are several objectionable principles in the Bill. However, one has to set that against the fact that the hardship is real and apparent and can be remedied in time only by a somewhat makeshift Measure. Therefore, perhaps we ought not to be too severe in criticising some of the unhappy principles embodied in the Bill.
I quote in this context a remark made many years ago by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), in a debate on something done by the Labour Government. When he was asked whether he disapproved of what had been done, he replied in these words, "If a man jumps off a precipice, and bounces from cliff to cliff, it is idle to ask whether one approves or disapproves of his bouncing. He should not have thrown himself off the precipice in the first place." I am quoting from memory. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cares to look the passage up, he will, I think, find that I have not misrepresented him.
Vicious as some of the principles of the Bill are, it is idle to ask now whether one approves or disapproves of them. The Government, in their usual manner, threw themselves off the precipice and are now bouncing. The cushions must be found. Here, such as they are, we have them, so we have to ask ourselves whether these are the best kinds of cushions which at short notice can be put together.
Let us look at what the Bill actually proposes. As the Minister told us, Clause 1 is simple and small. The total amount that will be handed out by the Government is about 1 per cent. of the total of central Government grants to local authorites. It is about £6½ million. Government grants to local authorities total one hundred times that figure, and


the total expenditure of local authorities is more than £800 million. It is not a great deal, and, as the local associations have said, if it were spread evenly, every authority would get such a tiny bit that it would hardly say thank you for it. Indeed I do not know that anyone has said thank you very warmly.
But it is not spread evenly, and the Minister has given various examples. Worthing will get about £80,000; Bourn mouth will receive £95,000; and one newspaper reports that a Northern industrial town, which it does not name, will get £500; and a London borough will get about £3,000. It would be amusing, but uncharitable, to make a full list and correlate it with a list of Conservative majorities at the last General Election, but the Minister has not laid any such paper before us. It may be that the authorities that will benefit most will not be those with the largest Conservative majorities, but those with a majority in the large but precarious range. It is, therefore, clear that it is most important to grant relief in an interim Bill as soon as possible.
We have soberly to ask what relation this has to individual hardship, because that is the only justification for a makeshift Measure of this sort. The relationship is a somewhat indirect and not altogether satisfactory one. It would be a great mistake to think that Clause 1 can be interpreted simply as providing help to elderly ratepayers, but such people, who may be quite hard hit, and who live in areas where there is not an exceptionally large number of people like themselves, will get no benefit at all, directly or indirectly, from Clause 1. It is the elderly ratepayer who lives in a locality where there is a high proportion of elderly people who might indirectly get some benefit by this Clause, and it is the fact that that kind of elderly ratepayer is more likely to be better off than ratepayers living in areas that will not benefit from the Clause. I do not think that that can be disputed.
We next have to notice that the benefit is given to the authority and forms part of its general revenue, and presumably, therefore, causes the amount that it has to raise on the rates to be so much less than it otherwise would be. That is the way in which the benefit is passed on to individuals, but which individuals? To every ratepayer in the

borough, including not only the residential ratepayers but the commercial and industrial ones as well.
Do they need it? As far as I can see, that result occurs only because the Government have not thought out a way whereby they can channel this help more directly towards the elderly residential ratepayer. We are, in effect, here making what is a variation in the general grant formula. We are bringing in a new factor for assessing the total amount of grant to be paid by the central Government with only a loose and indirect relationship between the amount of grant and the individual hardship with which the Bill is supposed to deal.
There will be a number of individual elderly ratepayers to whom the passage, or non-passage, of this Clause will make no difference at all, however hard hit they may be, and there will be a number of ratepayers, elderly and non-elderly, residential, industrial, and commercial, who will get some benefit from this Clause, although frankly they do not need it, so it is a somewhat blunt instrument.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: Clause 2 is headed:
Relief for residential occupiers of dwellings.
Surely that means that it is the residential occupier who can get relief—and not industrial or commercial ratepayers?

Mr. Stewart: I was discussing Clause 1which gives grants to local authorities. The effect of it will be that the amount of rate which a local authority will have to levy will be so much less. The benefit will accrue to all ratepayers in the area, residential, industrial, and commercial. I am talking only of Clause 1, and pointing out that it is a somewhat blunt instrument.

Mrs. Evelyn Emmet: The weighting for children is equally a general grant for the county, and is spread over everybody. It is not possible to channel a special grant to a particular group of people.

Mr. Stewart: The weighting for children part of the general grant introduced in the 1958 Act was, at any rate, a carefully thought out Measure to try to bring in all the factors that one ought to consider to get a proper kind of


general grant. This is a makeshift, interim Bill which is altering the general grant formula. That is, in effect, what Clause 1 is doing. I am pointing out that the relationship between that and helping elderly, hard-hit ratepayers is a very indirect and tenuous one indeed. Clause 1 is a blunt instrument. It may be the best instrument that could be thought up at short notice, but one cannot say more than that for it.
Now let us look at Clause 2 and the subsequent Clauses, which really expound and develop the theme of Clause 2. The principle here is, first, to make certain individuals eligible to claim partial remission of rates. If they are eligible under the Statute, they get the remission only if they satisfy the local authority that they are suffering hardship. I think that the Minister might have tried to tell us how many, and what sort of individuals will be eligible for benefit. We may get some areas in which the great majority of the ratepayers will be, within the terms of the Statute, eligible for benefit, or if they are not immediately so, they may be quite soon because, with the normal expansion of the amount of money which local authorities have to raise, it may not be long before they find themselves paying 25 per cent. more.
A real difficulty in the presentation of the Bill is that we have insufficient information on that extremely important fact, because that is a measure of the administrative task which local authorities will face in determining hardship. How many people will be eligible to claim hardship? I have seen it suggested that in some areas 80 per cent. of the ratepayers will be eligible to claim, and the local authority will have to weigh up which of them is suffering hardship.
There is then the question whether the definition of eligibility to claim in the Statute is the right one. Perhaps I might quote from an article by Mr. Ilersic in the Observer, which puts the point as well as I have seen it put. He said:
For example, the young married couple with children buying a self-built house on a large mortgage, for whom a 20 per cent. rate increase may impose far more hardship that a 40 per cent. rise for the retired bank manager in his bungalow.

That may be true. The young couple may have their rates put up only 20 per cent., but it may mean greater hardship for them than to somebody in more favourable circumstances whose rates have gone up 40 per cent. Yet that young couple cannot claim relief, or even ask the local authority to consider whether they are a hardship case.
What is more—they will have to help pay for such remission as is given to the persons whom their local authority decides are hardship cases, because the Government will bear only half—or in some cases a little more than half—of the cost of the relief given to individuals who are hard-hit. The cost must come out of the pockets of their fellow ratepayers.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to The Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): Taking into account Clause 1.

Mr. Stewart: Yes—taking into account Clause 1, if the local authority is one that benefits under that Clause. That makes it all the more important to see whether we have got right the definition of what makes one eligible to be considered as a hardship case. I hope that in Committee the Government will be prepared to consider this point very carefully.

Captain Walter Elliot: The hon. Gentleman has implied that a young married couple would not be able to claim hardship, but I understood that my right hon. Friend, in referring briefly to the directive, specifically said that people could claim if they suffered hardship because it took time to adjust their pattern of spending to the new income situation. That is what I understood my right hon. Friend to say.

Mr. Stewart: I am not quite sure how one equates that with the wording of the Bill. It may be necessary to consider this matter again in Committee.
I have studied the Money Resolution in this connection, and as I understand it it would permit of Amendments which would make an alteration in the increase from 25 per cent. to some other figure. That is something that we could discuss in Committee.

Sir K. Joseph: I have no quarrel with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but since his words may be read widely I hope that he will emphasise that the 25 per cent. and £5 are in the form of a two-year jump and not a one-year jump, and that they therefore let in a larger class.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, but we cannot be certain that this limit will not make eligible some people who do not need help while excluding some who do. We must consider the matter carefully in Committee, and I hope that by then we shall have a little more information in our hands. There are various agencies who can produce at least sample information on this sort of topic. I could pursue this point, but I must not take up too much time, since I know that many other Hon. Members will wish to speak.
I want to say a word on the question upon which most discussion has concentrated: is it right to make local authorities the judges of hardship? I understood the Minister to say that the local authority associations have accepted this idea or, at least, had agreed with the Bill. The Bill offers them money, and it would be difficult for local authority associations to say that they do not accept it. But I have a memorandum from the Urban District Councils Association and I am bound to say that it is not an enthusiastically worded document. Of course, it does not reject the Bill; no association of local authorities will reject it, when there are certain extra grants in it.
But the memorandum says, on the hardship question, that it is considered that the Minister ought,
for the benefit and guidance of rating authorities, if the Bill is enacted, to publish what in his view constitutes hardship, what in general terms are the householders he wishes to see relieved and, again in general terms, what scale of relief he contemplates and how far it should go. It is not fair to the rating authorities to throw the whole onus on them.
Before the debate is over it is desirable that we should hear whether the Minister will meet local authorities on that point.
What they are asking for is not to have their discretion removed; they are asking—in the fashionable phrase—for

a "guiding light", and it is obvious from the last sentence that I have read out why they are asking for it. They do not want the whole odium of this invidious task to be thrown upon them. If they have to justify a refusal of relief in a particular case they will at least be able to say, "This is our judgment, and, what is more, this is the judgment that we have reached after taking into account what the Minister had to say about it."
Since local authorities are having this invidious task thrust upon them, partly because the Government had not the mental energy to study the question of central and local government finance three years ago, this request for a guiding light and for some share of the odium to be borne by the Government is a reasonable one, which I hope the Government will be prepared to meet.
I have said that this is a makeshift Bill, which we shall have to pass because we have to meet hardship, but I conclude with a word or two on what, in the long term, is required. First, we must make sure that we are having a real inquiry into local government finance—not only into the way in which the rating system works and the incidence of rates; not only into the question of the comparative shares of the Exchequer and the rates as sources of income for the local authorities, but also into the question whether other sources of local government revenue than rates can be found.
On 19th December last year, almost exactly a year ago, the Parliamentary Secretary said, in effect, that it was encouraging false hopes to promise inquiries of that kind. I see from nods behind him, however, that some of his hon. Friends agree with me rather than with him on this matter. I warn him again—considering how many words have been aten by the Government in the last few months—not to nail his colours too firmly to that mast, because for all he knows he may well be getting up at that Box to announce a revolution in respect of local government revenues before many weeks are past.
We want a real inquiry into all those aspects of the matter, but while the inquiry is ending—and it will take time; it is a very complex subject—we must accept the fact that greater help from the taxpayer to the ratepayer is needed. It is important for the public


to grasp this fact. We all know that public services must be paid for; they do not grow like wild flowers. But the whole point of having them paid for rather more through taxes and rather less through rates is that it is easier to make taxes a fair instrument than to make rates a fair instrument. When the total volume of expenditure grows the question of fairness becomes more important.
That is what has been happening with rates. Theoretically, there has always been something unfair about trying to assess a man's ability to contribute to local services by the value of the rateable property he occupies, but when the total amount to be raised was comparatively small that theoretical unfairness did not matter so much. For example, if we could raise the whole of the State's revenue by a poll tax of 1d. per head per year, the theoretical unfairness of such a method would not worry anybody. But in recent years the total of local authority expenditure has been growing, and the inherent unfairness of rating has, therefore, become less of a matter of theory and more of a matter of real and harsh practice.
That is why, until, as a result of an inquiry, we can really get the whole thing on a proper basis, the immediate remedy needed is that more expenditure should be borne through taxes and less through rates, and that the particular channel through which that could be done would be a return to the principle of a specific percentage grant, because in many cases what we are asking local authorities to do is to expand services—to expand the education service and to go ahead with the comparatively new job of comprehensive development.
To do that properly local authorities need specific education and planning grants. They also need help—I make no apology for mentioning this again—in respect of the burdens of interest rates and land prices. As long as the Government refuse to do anything about either of those, we shall have difficulty with the rates. But these things lie in the future and are larger matters. We have this Measure at the moment and I say to my hon. Friends that I believe we must approve it as a necessary crutch for those who have been hit by this chain of events. Let us hope

that it will also be the crutch on which this Government will hobble into retirement.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Robert Allan: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) into a discussion on the last two wider points which he raised, because I wish to talk particularly about the problem facing central area boroughs as a result of revaluation. My right hon. Friend mentioned that there were four rating areas where the average rate payment had gone up, I think, by £78. I am relatively certain that the Borough of Paddington must be one of those rating authorities, together with its immediately neighbouring central London boroughs. I do not want to be too parochial, but if in support of my argument I quote a few figures from the Borough of Paddington, I think that they can be more or less exactly matched in St. Marylebone and Westminster and certainly they can be quite closely matched in a number of other central urban boroughs throughout the country.
The main general effect of revaluation on central boroughs in London has been that their new rateable value has been increased by considerably more than the rateable value of the County of London, as the hon. Member for Fulham will know well. This has meant that these boroughs have to pay a much higher proportion of the precept from the London County Council. Incidentally, they also get less back from the equalisation scheme. In terms of hard cash this means a burden of £250,000 on Paddington ratepayers. This burden, which is equivalent to an 8d. rate on the new valuation, or 1s. 6d. on the old valuation, is imposed on the ratepayers not for any new services which they are getting; not even to meet the additional cost of existing services. It is imposed simply by the act of revaluation itself.
Another general effect on the boroughs about which I am talking has been the higher proportion of the general rate which now falls on the domestic ratepayer. This has happened for a number of obvious reasons but mainly because there is not much industry in those areas. Although in the


main I am giving Paddington as an example, I think that the same shift occurs elsewhere. Whereas before revaluation the domestic ratepayer bore 45 per cent. of the rates, now the proportion is 59 per cent. This swing on to the domestic ratepayer means that he has to find £713,000 more than before. This, together with the other consideration which I have mentioned, means that the increase in domestic rates per head of population in Paddington and St. Marylebone is no less than 55 per cent., in Westminster it is 52 per cent., and in other central areas it is about the same percentage. These are average figures and my right hon. Friend emphasised that he, too, was talking about average figures.
It is when one gets to particular cases that the real poignancy and hardship is seen. I am sure that we could all give many examples of extreme hardship caused to our constituents. But I do not wish to go into personal details. We all know that when we undertake any new housing commitments we think in terms of the total outgoings. If one is exceptionally prudent one may make allowances in one's mind for some slight and gradual increase in rate payments. But even the most excessively prudent person would not make an allowance for an increase of £2 or £3 a week which is certainly all too common in my constituency.
I am told, I think that probably it is quite true, that there will be about 20,000 ratepayers in Paddington who will be eligible to put in an application for relief in respect of hardship under the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill. The hon. Member for Fulham was trying to discover the size of this problem. I am told by the Paddington borough treasurer that the figure may be something of this nature in Paddington. It will impose an almost impossible administrative task—as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Fulham—on any local authority. What is quite certain is that in Paddington there are 5,389 domestic ratepayers whose rateable values have gone up by more than five times and whose rate payments have gone up by a minimum of 86 per cent. This illustrates the magnitude of the problem with which we are confronted.
In the face of this large problem the provisions in Clause 1 will provide only negligible relief in these central areas. So far as I can make out, in Paddington the relief, or the amount payable back in the rate fund—it is not an individual relief—will provide about £5,000, and that against an impost on the domestic ratepayers of over £700,000. So, obviously, in the boroughs to which I have been referring the main relief will be channelled through the machinery of Clause 2. Here again it is the size of the problem that matters, because it will be virtually impossible for any local authority to investigate all the claims of hardship which will be submitted. I think that my right hon. Friend must go a bit further than he went today, either in offering guidance or, better still, in defining hardship in relation to this Bill. There will have to be some definition of hardship to enable local authorities to give some blanket relief to specified categories of persons. It may be old people—or there may be other ways in which this can be done.
As was said by my right hon. Friend, it is the suddenness and the steepness of the increases which has caused not only a sense of injustice but also a real hardship as well. This could be mitigated in a number of ways which have already been canvassed. There might be some arrangement whereby increases were spread in steps over a period of years. Increases of over, say, 50 per cent. could be considered as hardship from the point of view of the provisions in this Bill. But even if we had some such blanket provision admitting relief automatically to categories of people, provided that it was applied for, the local authorities would still be overwhelmed by the administrative task involved in investigating those who apply under the provisions of Clause 2. As I am sure is the whole House, I am grateful to the Government for attempting to give some measure of relief, and for that reason I shall support the Bill. But I fear that its provisions will not be workable unless some of the suggestions which I have made are incorporated into the Bill at a later stage.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I am sure we have all been interested in the particular problems of


Paddington, which has created, in disputes about its valuation, new local sensations which have reached a dizzy level. This is the first time I can remember when a property company has challenged in the High Court the valuation officer's list. It will be extremely interesting to see what happens as a result of this novel development.
I begin by saying that, while no one wants to look a gift horse in the mouth, especially when it is worth about £6 million and particularly at this festive time of year, nevertheless I resent, as I hope HON. MEMBERS on both sides of the House resent, the fact that we have to waste more legislative time in considering still another partial rating Measure instead of getting down to a fundamental recasting of the rating system, as we could have done at any time in the last 10 years.
I am certain that if future historians of this place examine our proceedings they will be quite mystified by the number of rating Bills and the amount of legislative time Ministers and Hon. Members have had to give to this subject with apparently very little ultimate satisfaction to ratepayers or administrators. Most of the Measures with which we have had to deal have been designed to remove one anomaly and, when that has been accomplished, they have seemed to raise half a dozen others. The result has been that often we have been worse off than we were before, for in attempting to remove anomalies we have often masked the defects in the present valuation system.
I thought it bordering on impertinence for the Minister to talk about our lack of courage when in fact the 1953 and the 1960 Acts were both designed by the Conservative Government to defer the full effects of valuation. In the 1953 Act we not only put off valuation for one year, as we did in 1960, but put back valuation of residential properties 14 years, to 1939. It therefore seems that questions about courage in the matter of rating come very ill from HON. MEMBERS opposite.
The Government stand to be condemned on three specific charges. Over the last 10 years they have failed to take advice either from Hon. Members on this side of the House—which I can under-

stand for they might find that distasteful—or from many experts outside. I can remember myself and others telling the then Minister in charge, the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) that the 1953 Act was asking valuers to attempt almost the impossible because they were somehow to put their minds back to before the war, to 1939, and to assume that the Rent Restriction Acts had had no effect, that there was no marked overcrowding or under-occupation of houses. If there were any benefits in the district in 1953 it was assumed that they had been there in 1939, and if there was any defect in 1953 it was not to be assumed for the purposes of valuation that it was there in 1939.
I remember saying that this was a task, not for valuers, but for magicians. I can well remember the right hon. Gentleman's remark, because it was characteristic. He said:
Ministers are but dim and transient phantoms who flit across the stage, and these men who are unhappy enough to have devoted their lives to valuing will have to carry out this work long after I have forgotten all about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C: c. 2137.]
This 1953 Act created much bitterness and anomaly which could have been avoided. The first charge against the Government then, which is proved up to the hilt, is that they failed to take the advice which was available not only in this House but from authoritative and knowledgeable experts outside.
Secondly, there is their failure in the past 10 years to have what they have now conceded—a full-scale inquiry. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) referred to the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, because this shows that if an argument is repeated often enough in this place it will even cause that hon. Gentleman to change his mind. On 19th December, 1962, almost a year ago, this is what he said:
I have been a critic of the rating system in the past…a very great number of people—eminent people—have given a very great deal of time to looking at the problem and have not been able to produce a really suitable alternative.
He went on to say:
On this sector of the problem, we must face up to the fact that promises of further inquiries are likely to hold out wholly false


hopes of producing anything either new or more satisfactory than the system that we have at the moment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1962; Vol. 669, c. 1335.]
If those words were true then, are they true now? If so, what is the point of having an inquiry?

Mr. Corfield: I should be delighted it I were proved wrong, but all I say is that I do not think there is an easy way of finding an alternative.

Mr. Skeffington: I hope that will be noted, because it is clear that we have not really convinced the Government of the need to look into the whole area of local government finance and we shall have to wait, as in so many matters, for a change of Government for that. On the face of it they seem to have changed their minds in the last 12 months. Thirdly, they stand condemned for not more actively considering alternative rating systems. The Royal Institute of Public Administration produced a detailed memorandum about a local income tax which at the rate of 3d. in the £ would in 1956 have produced £150 million and would produce much more now. This is the sort of alternative which should have been considered. The Association of Municipal Corporations has also had expert groups working on this problem.
It is quite shocking that in 10 years the Government have treated rating and local government finance as of no importance. All they have done has been to shift an ever-increasing financial burden on to the local authorities by the block grant legislation while at the same time the statutory obligations of local authorities have been increased by this Government.
The Bill has had a poor welcome practically everywhere and in the Press. I would not have bothered to quote the details of political criticism, but in view of the Minister's non-polemical speech about courage, I feel I have to do so. The Times said this on 10th December in an article which was headed "Panic Measure":
It has…been impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Government's sudden change of mind about immediate rate relief, its decision to act before the facts on which action should be based have been investigated by the Allen Committee, was prompted by electoral calculations…it is ill-prepared,

introduces at least one objectionable principle, and threatens to breed as much discontent as it is supposed to remove.
This undoubtedly is true particularly when unfortunate authorities have to decide between one applicant and another on the grounds of hardship. This week The Times returns to the attack in an article headed "A Thoroughly Bad Principle". After suggesting that the Bill
will present the House of Commons with a critical test of its legislative competence
it goes on to say:
It is also a highly political Bill intended to placate a section of the community whose wrath has made itself felt. To the generous impulses aroused by the first of these characteristics of the Bill must be added the political calculations prompted by the second.
This is pretty strong. It would be difficult to convince many of us and the public that the Bill is not unconnected with the political situation and the coming General Election.
Even the Sunday Times, on the 15th of this month, had some fun in trying to estimate how the hardship principle, the old-age principle, will be worked out. Mr. George Schwartz, with whose views I do not normally agree, had this to say about the over-65 principle:
I envisage a scramble for us old 'uns. 'Are you over 65? Come and live in Sea-ville. Sunshine, glorious sands, municipal orchestra and rating relief'…Yesterday the Mayor and Corporation attended by the town band assembled at the main station to greet Mr. James Blogg, whose arrival has tipped the 10 per cent. scale of the over-65s.
To have this kind of idea as a solemn basis for rating reform is asking us to swallow too much. Perhaps I may make a quotation from a more serious source, Mr. Ilersic, who has made a study of rating problems and who wrote in the Observer:
It is a hasty and ill-conceived measure intended to relieve some part of the hardship caused by the revaluation and at the same time placate the frustrated rather than overburdened ratepayer…
I have no constituency advantage from the Bill. I have no objection to relief being given where it can, but the Bill will make no difference whatever in my constituency or the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends. In my constituency only about 7 per cent. of the population are over 65. There, thanks to years and years of agitation from this


side of the House, industrial premises have at last been re-rated 100 per cent., and my constituents are benefiting from that re-rating.
It is a great pity that on such an occasion as this we have not with us Mr. Sparks, who used to represent Acton in the House and who did so much to present the arguments for the 100 per cent. revaluation of industry. On one famous Friday he even managed to get a Bill through the House on the subject, and the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, the right hon. Member for Wolver Hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), had to dragoon his followers to attend and kill it in Committee. Nevertheless, five years later we were able to get the Government to agree with our view. The tragedy is that we have all this waste of time and effort and all this hardship which could have been avoided if the Government had been more up to their job and acted sooner.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply to tell us how the Ministry feel that revaluation has worked out. Will he explain some of the peculiar problems which have arisen, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan)? I am not making any attack upon the valuation officers; they have a very difficult job to do, they work long hours and they always have great devotion to the task entrusted to them, but the situation at Paignton makes one feel that there must be some special reason for what happened there. Only 100 out of 2,653 properties were correctly assessed and the error involved a miscalculation of about £56,000. Perhaps some statement has been made about this but if so, I have not seen it.
I hope that we shall be told what went wrong, because it may have happened not only at Paignton. Worthing, which will certainly benefit under the Bill, was about to bring a deputation to see the Parliamentary Secretary. I know that the hon. Gentleman spends much time seeing deputations and that he saw one this morning, but it is a fact that there is acute dissatisfaction at Worthing. A few years ago in my constituency 1,200 council houses were incorrectly valued because

for some reason the valuation officers did not know that they had electric light. When this was discovered the property was revalued and the assessments were increased. I can understand such an error in a few properties or in one house, but it is rather extraordinary that a mistake should be made affecting 1,200 houses.
Quite apart, therefore, from the merits of the rating system, or its lack of merits, which is perhaps too complicated a subject to discuss in detail today in the Bill, I should like to know what the Ministry feels about the methods at present being used and the results achieved. We have had three or four examples made public, and there may be more. There is considerable dissatisfaction and concern about the kind of instruction given by the Inland Revenue to its valuers. I know that this is another Department, but the Minister obviously knows the instructions given to the valuation officers. What are the criteria which they must take into account in making valuations? Many people are very concerned about this situation.
The London County Council has considerable experience in the overall problem of rate revenue, because it looks at it from the view of the whole of the County of London. It takes the view that the new grants payable under Clause 1 will be spread too widely and too indiscriminately to achieve the desired objective. There are 1,400 local authorities, and I understand that some 1,200 are likely to claim some sort of relief and to benefit to some extent, though with widely differing benefits. A northern industrial town, where a Id. rate brings in £17,000, tells me that it will probably get £400, but Worthing will get, I think, about £80,000. I do not say that this is a Christmas gift to political supporters, but if the view of the London County Council is correct that the grant to be paid under Clause 1 could be paid under Clause 2, then the results would probably be more significant under that clause than if they are spread as thinly on the ground as is expected under Clause 1.
I suppose that on any calculation £6 million is worth while having, but the Government had a much simpler method of relieving ratepayers without all this


ballyhoo and without the individual applications which will have to be made and the dissatisfaction which will arise, as The Times said, among those who will not benefit. The Government could have increased the general grant. A few evenings ago at about 10.50 p.m. we discussed the general grant regulations. In 1963–64, local authority expenditure will go up by £45 million, but the Government propose to pay only £25 million, leaving a gap of £20 million to be filled by local authorities. In 1964–65 the additional expenditure, it is calculated, will be £55 million and the Government propose to make grants of £30 million, which leaves a difference of £25 million. It would have been very easy for the Government to have secured this relief to ratepayers without all this work, and without the heartburning individual applications which will have to be made. They would have increased the general grant sum. H is a great pity that that was not done.
I only hope that the time will very soon come when, if the present Government are not prepared to revise the whole of this creaking rating system, which is slowly coming to its doom, they will be replaced by a Government who have the courage at long last to do so.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: My right hon. Friend the Minister was quite right when he said that this is essentially a temporary or interim Measure. It has to be looked at in that light. I will, if I may, pick out some points made in previous speeches during the course of my remarks.
Like other Hon. Members on both sides of the House, I can welcome this Measure because it brings relief to ratepayers, and that is what has been asked for throughout the country. I estimate that the relief to ratepayers will be about £12 million—£6 million by direct grant under Clause 1 and approximately £6 million to local authorities so that they may relieve hardship. The other ratepayers in those local authority areas will in most circumstances have to find the other 50 per cent. of that relief.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr., R. Allan) was right to stress that this will be a considerable administrative task for local authorities.

I am afraid that the administrative cost will be rather high, and in my speech I shall concentrate not on the details of the Bill, which, I hope, will be dealt with adequately in Committee, but on certain principles which are implicit in the Bill and in our rating system.
First, there is the question of hardship. Local authorities, as my right hon. Friend said, are in certain circumstances, dealing in their rebate schemes, etc., with the question of the hardship of their ratepayers who occupy council houses. The local authorities are now to be asked to carry out a very much more difficult task, to judge hardship right across the board, across the whole gamut of ratepayers who reside in their areas. I submit that the local authorities may well need such powers as the National Assistance Board and the Inland Revenue have in order to be able to require information about the incomes of householders. Otherwise, I fear that we may get inequalities and injustices emerging just because relevant information may be concealed from the local authorities.
Again, local authority members themselves who will have to frame regulations on these matters may well, and I would think many will, actually be candidates for relief under this Measure. Very significantly the Bill does not tie this hardship to old age. It says that hardship will be relieved if it can be proved, and gives certain criteria which have to be complied with in order that individuals may qualify for relief.
I am going to stick my neck out a little tonight on the question of a very broad definition of hardship. My right hon. Friend the Minister has given us a certain amount of rather limited guidance tonight. I feel, with other Hon. Members on both sides, that rather more clear guidance may be necessary from my right hon. Friend, but I will try to throw a little more light on this subject; I will endeavour to produce my own guiding light with regard to a definition of hardship.
My right hon. Friend said that, on average, each ratepayer throughout the country was paying 11s. 6d. a week. It will be known to Hon. Members that the average industrial wage today is between £16 and £17 a week, so that


this average impost on the average industrial wage earner is approximately 3½ per cent. I would say that if the impost on any householder is double the average impost on the average industrial wage earner then he or she must be a candidate for hardship relief. I submit that if the impact of rates is 7 per cent., or 1s. 6d. a week, on the gross wage or income of the householder, then he or she must qualify to be considered as a candidate for hardship relief.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who spoke first from the Opposition Front Bench, mentioned the natural increase of rate poundages. This is a significant factor, and I estimate that during 1963–64 and 1964–65, which period will govern this question of the 25 per cent. factor, the average increase in poundages throughout the country will be of the order of 15 or 20 per cent. Therefore, in the words of The Times, many candidates will approach "the threshold" of these conditions by reason of the increase of rate poundages over the course of these two years.
I now turn to some of the best news which my right hon. Friend gave tonight. This was when he said that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was to undertake a general review of central and local government finance and a review of the rating system. That is excellent news, and I agree with my right hon. Friend when he said that up to this time there have really been too many variables in this situation for any expert committee to get down to a clear determination of the problem. However, I think that today we are in a position where the facts of revaluation and the various recastings of grants can be carefully weighed, and that, therefore, we are now in a position to get on with the job of a major review.
Time, however, is not on our side. There will be another major revaluation at the end of the quinquennium in 1968, but before that time, in 1966 and 1967, the valuers will have to get to work possibly on a new basis of assessing direct to net annual values all domestic hereditaments. Therefore, if they are to have the required information before them in 1966–67, masses of new legisla-

tion—I warn my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that this will be necessary—will be needed in the year 1965 in order to do a complete recasting of the rating system and of the relativity of grants to rates. Then the valuers and all concerned will be in a position to act in 1968 the hardship having been taken care of in the intervening period by this Bill.
All this will mean that the inquiry which has to be carried out in 1964 will be on a vast scale. The inquirers will have an immense field to cover, and I believe that they will only be able to do it if they divide themselves into teams. There will be a need for some central collating agency so that the information obtained can be studied, brought together, and a report produced at the end of 1964 and legislation brought forward in 1965. That inquiry, I think, should be into the equity of the present rating system—in all its aspects. Again, the inquiry should look at the main grant structure and possible alternative sources of locally raised revenue.
I regard this Bill as a temporary Measure in that respect and as an attempt to resolve hardship it is certainly welcome. Our task after the next election, when we return to these benches, must be to bring forward comprehensive legislation to deal with rating and the whole of local government finance.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: No one can suggest that this Measure has been received with a great deal of acclamation. I think that the best that can be said for it is what was said by The Times, when it remarked that as there were some very hard cases in which revaluation had fallen with unforeseen severity the Bill was assured of at least a qualified welcome. But, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that paper headed its editorial "Panic Measure" and described the Bill as prompted by electoral calculation, as ill-prepared and threatening to breed as much discontent as it is supposed to remove.
My hon. Friend referred to the observations made by Mr. George Schwartz in the Sunday Times when he poked what I thought was justifiable fun at the whole thing. Perhaps I may add that the Economist said that it was a


rushed political manœuvre which might have been forgiven if it had been a good one.
Rating is a very dry-as-dust subject which, as a rule, raises little interest except among the experts, but the recent revaluation has certainly resulted in assessments of such harshness that many ratepayers have been roused to fury. I have no doubt that the recently elected Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) suffered severely—and will in the future—from the ire of many such ratepayers. If I may introduce a personal note, I would tell Hon. Members that I live in a comparatively humble flat in Marylebone, and found my rateable value raised—I quote this as an example of many such cases in St. Marylebone—from £147 to £804 a year, nearly six times as much.
It is true that I managed to persuade the valuation officer to agree to reduce the assessment to £597—still more than four times the previous assessment—but there are still others, I know, adjacent to me, who have received this six-fold assessment, from £147 to £804.

Captain Elliot: I presume that the assessment was raised because of the revaluation, in which case the hon. and learned Gentleman would surely agree, in spite of what he has just said about the Bill being brought in for electoral considerations, that it is being brought in to relieve people who suffer hardship from that sort of revaluation.

Mr. Weitzman: The hon. Member must be aware that when we get the sort of thing that happened at Marylebone, with the threat that hangs over the Government, any panic measure will be brought in to secure some electoral advantage.
A local authority obviously has as its only source of income the money derived from the rates. It has been said again and again that the present system is archaic, unfair as between ratepayer and ratepayer, and cannot be justified on general or social grounds. In the debates on almost every rating Bill, someone has expressed the hope that one day a Government will have the courage to take the matter in hand. I am glad that the Minister has returned, because he used the words "courage on the part of the Government". What did the Government do?
We have heard that the Government intend to set up a committee next year to study the whole matter of rating. I nearly said after 12 years of Tory rule. It will be 13 years if they remain in power, but, of course, we know that they will not. But just imagine the claim made by the Minister on behalf of the Government. Recognising that dissatisfaction and the necessity for some reform, which has been pressed again and again by many of my hon. Friends, the Government now promise that next year a committee will be set up to study the whole thing.
In fact what the Government did was to set up the Allen Committee, with strictly limited terms of reference, to investigate ways of relieving those suffering from real hardship. One might have thought that they could have seized that opportunity to set up a committee with terms of reference wide enough to consider the whole matter. They had not even the excuse of urgency. Without waiting for any report from that Committee, the Government now suddenly seek to deal with the immediate situation by this interim Measure.
What do the Government do in the Bill? I would emphasise at the outset that Clause 1 and 2 are not related. One does not depend upon the other. Under Clause 1 we get an Exchequer grant of £5 for each person over 65, but only where the local authority has in its population more than 10 per cent. over the age of 65. This is, of course, an additional subsidy to the authorities. Far be it from me to decry help given by the Exchequer to authorities in the form of subsidies or otherwise—I am all in favour. But I thought that the Government had constantly taken the view that it was a dreadful thing to talk of additional subsidies. Let us see what it means in effect. Bourn mouth, we are told—I do not know whether I have the correct figures—gets about £90,000; Wands worth, about £54,000; and Marylebone just under £20,000. That money goes to the authorities to increase their revenue and to do as they wish with it.
They are not restricted in any way as to how they spend that money. It will go to the relief of rates of everyone, whether rich or poor he will benefit to the extent that it affects the rate payable. I realise that it is presumably meant to provide additional money to help an


authority in exercising its discretion in cases of hardship under Clause 2, but nowhere in the Bill does it say so. As I have said, the Clauses are not related.
May I put this to the Minister? Why is the hardship restricted to areas where there is more than 10 per cent. of the population over 65 years of age? Stoke Newington, according to the 1961 figures, has a population of 50,301 with 5,048 people over 65. It falls short by 182 of the necessary 10 per cent. and so it does not qualify under the Bill.
Are there no cases of hardship in Stoke Newington? What about a local authority with a large proportion of people with young children? Are there no cases of hardship among them? Is individual hardship something that depends upon living in a particular area? I put that to the Minister. No wonder it is said by the Press, quite correctly, that this differentiation will breed discontent. This contribution by the Exchequer hardly helps the elderly and it is quite illogical in principle.
Clause 2 gives to the rating authorities discretion to afford relief in 1964–65 and subsequent years where the rates for that year exceed the rates for 1962–63 by one quarter, or £5, whichever is the greater and the authority is satisfied that the increase causes hardship attributable to the increase since 31st March, 1963. It is to be noted that the relief is to be given for the year 1964–65. Why not 1963–64? Why is that year left out? The Minister looks surprised, but clearly a year is left out.

Sir K. Joseph: The whole purpose is to relieve from the exceptional results of revaluation. The year 1963–64 is a post-revaluation year. The comparison must be with the last year before revaluation.

Mr. Weitzman: If the Minister examines this again, he will see that there is a year of hardship which is not provided for in the Bill. Perhaps he will explain why that year is left out.
Reference has been made to the fact that there is no definition of "hardship". No guidance is given in the Bill. There is the limited guidance to which the Minister referred today, but I suggest that is no guidance whatever. The interpretation of "hardship" will

obviously vary from place to place. It is not poverty. The word used is "hardship". If a wealthy man proved that there had been an increase in his rates which made things more difficult for him, could not that be a case of hardship?

Sir K. Joseph: Sir K. Joseph indicated dissent.

Mr. Weitzman: Why not? What does "hardship" mean? Surely it means that someone suffers in some way. It is a terrible thing to ask a local authority to define this in some way. Surely it was not beyond the capacity of the powers that be to put into the Clause some words to guide local authorities about the meaning of "hardship"?
Even more regrettable than this is the fact that the Government have shuffled off the possibility of electoral rancour by putting the task of defining "hardship" on to local authorities. As a result, there will be the means test, a detestable thing. The burden is put on to the local authority to inquire into the private affairs of an individual. This is done by a Tory Government who prate so often about their love for individual liberty. The Minister says that local authorities have some experience gained from granting rebates to their own tenants. This is a far different thing. Is it right to put this task on to the local authorities? Does it not mean a means test? Cannot the Minister imagine the resentment there will be among many authorities? It is wrong in principle.
I have spoken to a number of borough treasurers on the question of administration. A number of them have assured me that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to work this from an administration point of view.
In central London, in particular, the rates of flats and houses have been raised to very high levels. Speculative builders, freed from restraint by this Government, have reaped a rich harvest in this area. The rents charged are used to justify raising the rates to very high levels. It is said, "If you pay that rent, even though it is with great difficulty and although you are compelled to do so, that is the rate at which the premises can be let in the open market. Therefore, you must pay high rates."
A grant under the Bill of £20,000 to Marylebone is a fleabite. Any relief


Marylebone will get will mean that more money must be found to make up for such relief. That will have to be found to a large extent by other ratepayers. The Minister will remember that when 20 per cent. was taken off commercial properties in 1957 the result was that the general rate had to rise. The rates will now have to rise again. The vicious circle will continue.
It is all very well to talk about this being an interim Measure. Is it not time that we stopped tinkering with the problem? My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) quoted The Times. The Times said this, also:
The job of valuation was taken away from local authorities and given to the Inland Revenue after the war in order to secure uniformity and certainty in the operation of the rating system. Those desirable features are now about to be discarded in a panic measure.
Whether it is right that rating valuation should be dealt with by the Inland Revenue may be open to argument. What is absolutely clear is that, instead of the limited terms of reference of the Allen Committee, long before now a committee should have been appointed with wide terms of reference to look into the principles affecting rating and its administration. The Government should not have introduced a Measure which will create further anomalies, because that is what f believe will be the result of the Bill.
I can only express the hope that the Minister was serious when he talked about a committee being appointed next year. It is, indeed, time that was done. The appointment of such committee which will make an effort to put the law of rating upon an equitable basis and do justice between ratepayer and ratepayer is long overdue.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I think that it was a little churlish of the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) to take such exception to the introduction of the Bill, because it appeared from the facts that he gave us that he is likely to be one of the beneficiaries of the Bill when it is enacted; but now that he has such an excellent representative in the House, if he has any grievances no doubt he will be able to take them up with him.
A remarkable feature of the debate has been the very churlish welcome—one might almost say carping welcome—that the Bill has so far received from HON. MEMBERS opposite. I for one—I am sure that I speak for many of my hon. Friends—am delighted that the Bill has been introduced. [Interruption.] Indeed, it benefits my constituency, but it also benefits the constituencies of many other Hon. Members. It benefits a great many people, who have every reason to be grateful.
I have gained the impression from some of the criticisms made by HON. MEMBERS that they believe that the Bill is designed to be the final culmination of all rating problems and all rating legislation for the future. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, and the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M.Stewart) all talked about the Bill being a monstrous Bill which lays down the terrible principles. The Bill is meant to be only an interim Measure to deal with an interim problem. I assure HON. MEMBERS opposite that many of my hon. Friends will also continue to press for further legislation in the future to deal with this vital problem. To criticise the Bill as if it were the final culmination of rating policy is completely to misunderstand the purposes for which the Bill is introduced.
The Bill is an interim Bill designed to meet the situation until Professor Allen's Committee reports. I was astonished to hear Hon. Members demand that a very tight definition of "hardship" should be written into the Bill. The Allen Committee was set up by my right hon. Friend specifically to determine what "hardship" means in this context. It is unreasonable for Hon. Members to demand that, whilst a very high-powered committee is examining this problem, my right hon. Friend should introduce his own definition of "hardship" into the Bill.
After revaluation last year my right hon. Friend became perfectly clear that there are a large number of cases of hardship as a result of increased rates. Consequently, the Allen Committee was established to report upon hardship. Another committee has been set up by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to review the whole rating system and


to determine, in particular, the exact proportions which should in future be raised from the taxpayer and from the ratepayer. Everyone who knows anything about this subject knows full well that any committee set up to decide what should be the exact proportions to be borne by the ratepayer and the taxpayer is presented with a very complicated problem. It is unreasonable to expect that legislation should wait until either of these two Committees reports.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has in the meanwhile produced this temporary and interim Measure to relieve hardship which exists. I do not think that anyone can pretend that it follows from the introduction of a temporary and interim Measure that all the principles laid down in it will stand for all time. Of course not. The Government have had to design some method to deal with the temporary problem in a way which seems as equitable as possible.
I should have thought that it was common ground between Hon. Members on both sides that it is in those areas where there is very little industry that the householder is likely to bear an increased burden on revaluation. I cannot give the exact figures for my constituency, but I think that the result of revaluation in the Borough of Southend as a whole has been an increase of approximately 5 per cent. in the proportion the domestic householder has to pay. Southend will benefit by £55,000 or £56,000 from the Bill, owing to the very large number of old people living there. It is true that large numbers of old people live in a number of constituencies like Southend. This is precisely the situation which the Bill is designed to meet. The inevitable result of the present rating system is that it is such areas as Southend that suffer.
It is high time that something was done, not only in this interim Bill, but in the future, to sort out the whole rating system. That is why I welcome my right hon. Friend's determination to set up a fundamental review which, as my hon. Friend the Member for the City

of Chester (Mr. Temple) pointed out, must work extremely fast if its recommendations are to be made in time for us to have adequate legislation before the next quinquennium arrives.
I do not think that anyone wishes to be faced with a similar problem in 1968, regardless of which party is in power. Of course, I think that the party which will then be in power will be the Conservative Party, but others may hold a different view. However, regardless of which party will be in power, it will have a difficult problem in 968 unless we can get the Committee to report quickly and we get legislation as soon as possible after the Committee reports.

Mr. James McColl: The hon. Gentleman appears to be scolding us because there is not a high-powered inquiry, but the whole burden of our case has been that a high-powered inquiry should have begun many years ago. That is why we voted against the 1961 Act. It is not our fault that we have not got an inquiry. If, when we on these benches come into power, we are faced with a chaotic situation in which it is impossible to adopt any policy about local government finance it will not be our fault.

Mr. Channon: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. If I was scolding him, which I do not think I was, I was certainly not scolding him on that ground. I said that I thought it a little churlish to take exception to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

6.2 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went: —and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:
1. Nigeria (Republic) Act, 1964.
2. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1964.
3. Electricity and Gas Act, 1963.

Orders of the Day — RATING (INTERIM RELIEF) BILL

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Channon: I was giving some of the reasons why I supported the Bill. I do not think it fair to criticise it on grounds that would be fair to criticise a Bill which represented the completion of the chapter on rate legislation. I welcome the Bill, imperfect though it may be in some respects, because immediate and urgent action is necessary.
I agree that it is very difficult for local authorities to determine exactly how they will interpret hardship, but I think and hope that it will be the people just above the National Assistance level who will largely benefit from it. To cite the case of my own authority, if we get £50,000 and choose to use it, as I hope we will, to relieve hardship cases, then, coupled with the grant which will come from the Treasury, we will have £100,000 available, which for my authority is a comparatively large sum. This is true of many other authorities. I very much hope and think that local authorities will use their powers to relieve hardship.
There is no doubt that trouble has been caused, not only by revaluation this year, but by extra spending on the part of local authorities. Local authority expenditure will inevitably rise as the years pass because of the increased cost of the many services which we all welcome. But there is no doubt that one thing which ratepayers will have to do much more carefully than they have done in the past is to scrutinise the programmes and schemes, and sometimes the expensive schemes, put forward by local authorities.
I hope that councillors who practise economy will find themselves more easily elected, because experience in some local authorities is that it is the councillors who vote for large increases in expenditure who kick up a fuss about rate increases when the rate budget is prepared. I think that that is very unfair.
I think that we all agree that the Bill is necessary. It is only an interim Measure. I take, however, a different

view from some Hon. Members about the rating system. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that it will be extremely difficult to find an alternative to the rating system, but I seriously hope that a strenuous attempt will be made to do so. I recognise that the rating system is hallowed by centuries of antiquity and that rates are extremely easy to collect, but the system has many disadvantages. One of the worst is that it is very haphazard.
It seems to me that very often the amount which the ratepayers have to spend towards the cost of education, which forms a vital part of the rates, depends not on how many good new schools there are in the area, but on how many industrial firms there are to help to bear the burden. This is a very strange system. Rates are by far the least progressive form of taxation, and even on that ground alone I should have thought that there was a case for changing the system. I should have thought that that point of view would appeal to some Hon. Members opposite.
We all agree that there are great dangers in Transferring too much money from local government to the centre, not only because it would be extremely unpopular if extra taxation had to be raised in the form of Income Tax, but also because it would be a dangerous principle if control was too far removed from the people who have to pay for the services. But, granted that, I still think that there is enormous scope for making changes in the system.
We may well have to re-examine and reconsider some of these problems, of which the cost of education is the most striking. I do not think it would be sensible to recommend that the whole cost of education should be borne by the Exchequer, but I think that there is a case for part of the cost being borne by the Exchequer. Perhaps part of the police burden should be borne by the central Government. These are problems which I hope will be dealt with expeditiously by the Chief Secretary's committee.
This is a Bill which will relieve a great deal of hardship, and there is much hardship in certain areas. I have had many letters which I have forwarded to the Allen Committee dealing with hardship and I expect that many


other Hon. Members have done the same. A great deal of hardship has resulted from revaluation and increased local authority expenditure. The Bill is designed to relieve part of that hardship until there can be a really first-class review made of the whole system.
I have some doubts about the view of some Hon. Members that we should have had this review earlier. That might have been a good thing in some ways, but it would not have been practicable to complete the review until we had learned the results of revaluation. Although some Hon. Members were crying in the wilderness before revaluation took place, it was not until it happened that we realised the full extent of the problem facing the Government and local authorities.
I do not think it entirely fair to criticise every detail of the Bill. As I say, it is an interim measure in what I consider to be a good cause, namely, to relieve some part of the ratepayers' burden. A criticism of the hon. Member for Fulham was that Clauses 1 and 2 did not go together. Although they cannot be put together in Parliamentary language, I am sure that the intention is that the sum of money which local authorities get should be used, not for the benefit of the general body of ratepayers, but to relieve the hardship which is described in Clause 2.
In spite of the difficulties of the Bill, I hope that it will have a fair passage in this House.
It was a previous colleague from Bristol, Edmund Burke, who said about taxation, that
To tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, is not given to men.
That has proved abundantly clear in the case of the rate burden. My right hon. Friend the Minister, more than anyone else, has reason to know that this is true. I hope that as a result of the Bill, a small interim step will be taken to secure better justice for a class of ratepayers who have been a little too ill-treated in the past.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: For the last 14 years, I have been taking part in debate on local authority rates. It is not a very thrill-

ing subject, even though the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has found it an opportunity for quoting Edmund Burke. Although the subject is not very thrilling, however, it affects a great many people. To the elderly person living on a small income, perhaps with a few savings, just above the National Assistance level, a steep increase in rates can be a serious matter. The problem is what to do about it.
Having studied the various Bills which have come before us during a long period of years, I consider that the legislation has become increasingly complex. It is true that occasionally attempts have been made to introduce a recognisable principle, but it has not lasted very long. There is, therefore, considerable point in the opening sentence in the article of the Observer of 15th December on the subject of the Bill which states:
If and when the rating system should be abandoned as the basis of local government it will be due not so much to its inherent defects as to the sorry series of expedients born of political pressures which have marred and impeded the working of the system since 1925.
I would not accept the view that there are no inherent defects in our rating system. I believe that there are some fundamental defects. It is, however, true that much of the legislation has been determined by expediency. The Bill is an outstanding example.
I agree that many cases of steep increase have arisen from the last revaluation. There is plenty of evidence of this and I forecast that it would happen before the revaluation same into effect. A good deal of the hardship is due to the suddenness of the change, but I do not think that it will necessarily follow that the Bill will produce the satisfaction that it is intended to achieve. For everyone who benefits, an equal number may feel aggrieved.
Several quotations have been made from The Times, particularly the article entitled "Panic Measure". The criticism of the Bill is summed up in a paragraph which follows one already quoted in the debate and which states:
It has, however, been impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Government's sudden change of mind about immediate rate relief, its decision to act before the facts on which action should be based have been investigated


by the Allen Committee, was prompted by electoral calculations. The resulting measure is just what might be expected; it is ill-prepared, introduces at least one objectionable principle and threatens to breed as much discontent as it is supposed to remove.
That is all too often the penalty for acting on expediency.
Before putting forward a few of my own specific criticisms, however, I should like to obtain more clarification of what is intended to be the combined effect of Clauses 1 and 5, to which there have been several references during the debate. The intention is still not quite clear. Clause 1 provides for Exchequer grants to rating authorities in whose area people over 65 years of age make up more than one-tenth of the population. This has been condemned in some quarters and by some Hon. Members this afternoon on the ground that it will result in a general subsidy to a rating authority and the benefit will be spread over all ratepayers, whether in need or not. Clause 5, however, is criticised on the ground that the Exchequer will provide only one-half of the relief which the rating authorities are enabled to grant at their discretion, as provided for in Clause 2, the remainder having to be found by the ratepayers as a whole.
Exactly how are Clauses 1 and 5 to be taken? The two particular criticisms which I mention may cancel each other out. There may be some local authorities where the amount of grant under Clause 1 will offset the amount which is left to the local authority to find under Clause 5. Is that intended? If so, why is the result achieved in such a roundabout way? Alternatively, is it intended that in some cases the local authority should get more than it actually pays out, whereas in other cases local authorities will have to pay out more in relief than they receive in grant? To me, it is all unnecessarily complex. I hope that in the winding-up speech, we shall have further enlightenment on the relationship between Clauses 1, 2 and 5.
Apart from that, I have five main criticisms. First, there is no clear guiding principle. This is simply a hand-out, or, at least, a promise of a hand-out, and it will lead inevitably to complaints from taxpayers who do not share in it. Secondly, there may be unfairness as between ratepayers in one local authority area and another. I am

not making any special pleading for the borough which I represent. During the 1950s, Huddersfield came off fairly badly concerning Exchequer grants and I often had to make representations on its behalf. During the 1960s, however, Huddersfield has been comparatively well treated. Nevertheless, it is very much a case of the luck of the draw.
However in talking of unfairness, I think not so much of my own borough as of the application of these proposals to some other local authority areas—for example, to some of the new or overspill towns which contain many elderly people but where there is likely to be also a high proportion of children. Presumably, this will reduce the percentage figure available to the elderly. This scarcely seems to be equitable.
My third criticism is that there is no clear basis of assessing hardship, as other Hon. Members have pointed out. We are not dealing with poverty as such, of which there can be a reasonably clear definition. Surely, it would be wiser either to define hardship more clearly or to leave it to the local authority to act as it thinks best without the complicated limitations imposed in the Bill. Here we have neither one thing nor the other.
Fourthly, there is bound to be an increase in administrative costs. This was summed up in a paper by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants dated 12th December, 1963. I quote the relevant paragraph:
Rating authorities will undoubtedly incur some additional Administrative expenditure in assessing hardship and applying relief. They will also be involved in the task of estimating the total sum likely to be lost through remissions, because this will influence the calculation of the penny rate product and so, in turn, the late in the £ required to be levied. The rate in the £is, of course, computed by dividing the aggregate net expenditure by the penny rate product. Most county councils have already obtained from the rating authorities in their area the 1964–65 estimated penny rate product for precepting purposes. It appears likely that they will now have to call for fresh calculations.
It certainly looks to me as if there will be some hard work for the mathematicians.
Fifthly, I think the timing is unfortunate in that relief should have been granted at the same time as the new revaluation came into effect. There is nothing in the Bill to help those who are


most harshly hit by increased rates during the present winter. We have an anomalous state of affairs in which the relief proposed will not come into effect till next year.
Meanwhile, the Allen Committee is sitting, and supposed to be studying the very subject which this Bill attempts to deal with. Local authorities were asked earlier this year to make submissions to the Allen Committee, and the leader of the Liberals on Exeter City Council has sent me an interesting memorandum which only came into my hands today. I understand that Exeter City Council resolved that in view of the short time available no detailed submission was possible and that it merely recorded its view that hardship is inevitable to ratepayers on low and fixed incomes.
However, the Liberal group carried out an analysis of 34 cases which had been brought to its attention where hardship was claimed. Examination of these cases shows that whereas before April, 1963, the average householder in the sample paid 8·7 per cent. of his total income in rates, after April, 1963, the amount rose to 10·5 per cent. Of the 34 householders, 13 paid more than 10 per cent. of their income in rates, and of those two paid more than 20 per cent., and one more than 30 per cent. It seems almost unbelievable that someone should be paying 30 per cent. of his total income in rates.
Naturally, I looked to see if these were National Assistance cases. I find here in this report that seven householders were in receipt of National Assistance, which was included in the income of the householders. So it is only seven out of the 34 where National Assistance has been paid, f think that gives some striking examples of hardship, although hardship may not have been defined.
The survey states:
A typical case of hardship which emerged from this survey was that of pensioners living alone in the older type of terraced house. The rate demand on these ratepayers is frequently more than 10 per cent. of their total income and is often paid out of a shrinking reserve of small savings.
I must say that I think, knowing this to be the case, that it is unfortunate that nothing should have been done for this current year. Most of the information was known a year ago. One is

entitled to ask why no action was taken a year ago.
However, it has now been decided to act without waiting for the report of the Allen Committee, and it seems to me that there is much to be said for simplifying the procedure for emergency relief. According to the article in the Observer, to which I have already referred, this tinkering with the rating system will cause further frustration. Would it not be wiser to remove some of the complicated limitations contained in this Bill—I am thinking particularly of Clause 2—and, as suggested in the Observer article, as local authorities are responsible bodies, leave it to their discretion to make use of such grants as the Treasury is prepared to concede?
I am aware of the contrary argument—in fact, the contrary argument has been put this afternoon—that the local authorities should not have this difficult burden placed upon them of deciding who should be entitled to relief and who should not. Personally, I am inclined to the view that it would be better to simplify this Bill, rather than make it more complicated, and place the discretion upon the local authorities to do as they think best with such grant as is available.
Finally, the terms of reference of the Allen Committee will have to be widened or amended. I do not quite know how the work of that Committee will be related to the investigation which is to be made by this new administrative committee. Or is it intended that the Allen Committee should complete its work first, before the new committee is set up? I do not know, but whatever body is given this task, someone should look into the whole subject of the present rating system and the many anomalies which exist, with a view to introducing some radical reforms. I have been pressing for radical reforms for a good many years, and I can only say they are very long overdue.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I sympathies enormously with my right hon. Friend because he has a tremendously difficult task facing him, and I think he realises all too well that no matter what he did about this Bill there would always be


people who would be discontented because they felt they had been omitted. Whatever proposals he put forward there would always be some people who felt they were being ignored, and I would commend to him what the leader in the Evening Standard on 10th December said:
An expert once remarked that there is something about paying rates which turns a rational human being into a ravening reactionary overnight.
I think there is a good deal of truth in that. Rate demands seem to affect people much more than ordinary bills. None of us particularly like having to pay bills, but so far as I am concerned my rate demand is the one which really makes me see red more than any other. I would say that for my modest flat in your constituency, Mr. Speaker, my rateable value has been quadrupled, and therefore any increase in rate poundage in the future must certainly be viewed with great alarm, because whereas in the past, if the rate poundage went up by 6d., perhaps it was not too bad, in the new circumstances with vastly increased rateable values this will impose a tremendous burden on a lot of people.
I think this Bill is certainly a humane attempt to help areas and individuals whose budgets have been drastically upset by the sharp increase in rates due to revaluation. I think one of the measures contained in the Bill has a certain amount to commend it, and that is the payment of grant to rating authorities in those areas where they have 10 per cent. or more of the population made up of people of 65 years of age or more; in each of these cases a grant of £5 is paid for each person of that age in excess of that proportion.
This will undoubtedly help the seaside resorts and the holiday areas of this country, because those are the places where there is a high percentage of older people who have gone there to retire, and those are the areas which have been certainly badly hit by the revaluation because of their lack of industry.
However, I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider places like the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which is regarded as an industrial city, not a place where people usually go to settle when they retire; not, I think, what would be

termed one of the desirable areas of the country. It is, in fact, the centre of a great industrial area. Therefore, in Newcastle we benefit slightly by these grants, but we shall not get very much because the percentage of people over 65 in Newcastle is only slightly above 10 per cent. The strange thing is that although Newcastle is regarded as a great industrial city, we do not have so much industry within the city boundaries as most people imagine. Therefore, householders in Newcastle have found that tinder revaluation their share of the rate burden has been increased by 9 per cent., which is certainly in excess of the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). I imagine that Southend will certainly have a high percentage of older people and will, therefore, gain in this way, whereas Newcastle will not.
A provision of the Bill which should be carefully looked at is that local authorities are to have power to help people where hardship is caused. This boils down to the definition of "hardship" and to the sort of local authority that people have. Some local authorities will look very sympathetically at cases and perhaps give people some redress, but someone in exactly similar circumstances may find that his local authority is hard-hearted and refuses to do anything to assist.
A great deal has been said in the debate and on the general subject of rates about old people and people living on small fixed incomes. I entirely agree that they are a very special problem and that it is up to us to devise some means to cushion the effects of revaluation on them.
Having said that, I want to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the case of people who bought a house, budgeting very closely to do so and taking on what they thought they could manage, but who now, because of the increase in rates, find it very difficult to make ends meet. They are not eligible for National Assistance and would not dream of asking for it. They would find it difficult to appeal to a local authority and say they were finding hardship in paying their rates. They are faced with a tremendous problem. The problem is even worse, because,


as they realise, it is only the beginning and the amount they are paying in rates this year will almost certainly be increased in subsequent years unless drastic action is taken.
An enormous amount of money will be spent on education in the years ahead. So long as we have our present rating system and education expenditure is shared between the central Government and local authorities, the burden imposed on ratepayers is bound to be enormous. This is causing tremendous concern to a large number of people. We encourage people to buy their own homes; yet they say that by doing so they are penalising themselves.
I have drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend areas where there are council houses in the same street as private houses and the council houses are assessed at a great deal less than the private houses. There may be some justification for this, but most people find it difficult to understand why the council houses should be assessed so much lower than the private ones. The official answer when I took this up with the rating authorities was that there was a stigma about living in a council house. All I can say is that ratepayers in my constituency state that they are prepared to suffer the stigma if only someone will give them council houses and take away their responsibilities for doing repairs, making mortgage payments and paying rates and doing the other things which go with home ownership.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, I feel that this is a stopgap Measure. My right hon. Friend himself said this. Many people will be very grateful to him for it. It is at least an attempt to do something to help the hardest hit. I was disappointed to learn that my right hon. Friend thought that the Allen Committee would not report until the summer at the very earliest. I had hoped the report would be published at the beginning of the year. That is a fact-finding committee, and its job is to try to assess the impact of rates on different sections of the community.
I do not feel that this goes far enough. I believe that the rating system is antiquated. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West that our

system may make rates easily collectable. On the other hand, nothing at all is said about ability to pay. One sometimes comes across old people living in the family home after the family has grown up and left. These people find it very difficult to pay the increased rates on a house which is now certainly too big for their own use. But one cannot tell them that they must uproot themselves and find something smaller to live in, because they want to stay in the area where they brought up their children, have their friends and know their neighbours.
Something must be done to find a new way of raising local revenue, which is necessary. It must be a way which has some regard to the ability of people to pay. While I welcome the Bill, I hope that it will be the beginning of a great deal of rethinking of the whole vexed problem of rates, because I believe that we have political dynamite here unless action is taken.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I could not help reflecting that the argument of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) about cases of hardship was somewhat similar to another argument used by his right hon. Friend. The words "political dynamite" have been used. I would prefer to be frank and say that the Bill uses the public purse to deal with the electoral difficulties of the other side of the House under the heading of "hardship", which the Minister does not want to define but which ought to be defined in any Act.
For months we have had Government back benchers screaming and shouting their heads off about the hardship results of the cold, studied policy in a Standing Committee two or three years ago of the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Home Secretary. I distinctly recall the attitude of that right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary, who is now the Minister dealing with this Bill. At that time I warned the right hon. Gentleman about the effect of the incidence of legislation on the electoral date, and it seems that what I said is now coming true.
When this point and other points were put to him, the Minister at that time


said that one step was enough for him. Now the full impact—let us be frank about this—of the philosophy of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House is coming home. The philosophy was that we must express the modern market value of houses in terms not of 1939 but 1961. That was the philosophy of the Government side, not the Opposition side. Many members of the Opposition and some HON. MEMBERS opposite could see that there would be difficulties in terms of geography and the four groups which make up the rateable paying side of the problem, and here and there we could discern what now amounts to hardship.
The Bill is pure panic legislation. It is hybrid legislation. It shows signs of having been drafted hurriedly. This afternoon the Minister showed signs that he was putting across a policy which had been thrust upon him: not a policy that he was really blessing. It was clearly a policy which had been thrust upon him to deal with electoral problems.

Mr. Dudley Smith: If this Bill is political, why did the Government introduce it a day or so after the St. Marylebone by-election instead of a few days before it?

Mr. Mapp: If the hon. Gentleman thinks me so naïve as to believe that the public has assessed the party opposite in only one by-election, I would point out to him that the portents have been with us for two or three years. The Prime Minister himself said that the next page after his own at Kinross would be a good one, but Dumfries proved to be dark for the Government after all. Let us be honest and admit that the Bill is sheer electoral strategy. The unfortunate thing is that it concerns a problem in which humanity is very much involved.
I am surprised that the Bill embodies a completely new principle of rating. I believe I am right in saying that, hitherto, rating assessment has been confined to a physical basis in property. Now the Government say that persons must come into consideration.

Mr. Corfield: Since 1925, there has been a provision by which property can be taken into account, and that includes persons. There is thus no breach of principle.

Mr. Mapp: I do not think that that intervention is other than tactical. One is aware that a rating authority, in the face of proved hardship, is in a position now to remit on merit, but if that is now being produced to justify this new extension of the rating principle to people as distinct from practice hitherto, it is a rather poor argument.
It has been interesting to note the evolution of thought among Hon. Members opposite about rates. Up until only months ago, the rating system based on property and land was sacrosanct to them, for reasons we all know. On this side of the House, however, we have always been clearly in favour of transferring local revenue from property to persons. Now right hon. and Hon. Members opposite have experienced a change of mind, for reasons of expediency.
Clause 1 specifically refers to persons
…over the age of sixty-five…
I am open to correction but I understand that, in practically all our legislation, provision for elderly persons takes effect when the age of sixty-five is reached. Therefore, the words
…over the age of sixty-five…
clearly mean the sixty-sixth birthday. I hazard a guess that the statistics available—like those I have in respect of my own borough—apply to that part of the population which is aged 65 and over and not to the part aged 66 and upwards. This is a material point. It could make a substantial difference in the ultimate financial effect of this relief.
We have been told that 1,230 rating authorities will benefit out of a total of 1,467. Clause 1 fixes the qualifying proportion of those over 65 in a town's population at 10 per cent.—which may mean, of course, as has been suggested, that the figure of 11 per cent. will be taken as the optimum number. Oldham is liable to qualify for this relief and it is estimated that the 2,300 people involved would bring Oldham the sum of £11,000.
I have some reservations about relief to rating accounts under this sort of guise. If we wish to legislate to assist people aged 65 and over, why should we not do it in a straightforward way?


Why not do it by recognising the services for older people, such as those my own local authority is pioneering? These are services specifically organised for older people and if we wanted to be more helpful to them we could, for instance, remove their prescription charges. That would be a better and more honest way of achieving the object than the Government's rather crafty electoral process. This is the sort of hypocrisy we are facing.
Another point to consider is what is to happen in cases where a local authority trying to do the right thing for its elderly people finds that difficulty arises because some have been housed outside its boundary. These people, of course, will be in some other authority's census. I know that that is a Committee point, but we should begin to consider it now.
Another way to help old people is through the home help service, which is one that really matters. Instead of offering this hybrid form of financial assistance under Clause 1, the Government should come clean and achieve the object through a more straightforward form of assistance. It is this attitude that makes me believe that the Government are not sincere when they say that they want to help old people.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) complained, quite rightly, about the complicated way in which the Bill is written. Surely the Minister could find a simpler form in which to say that the Government will pay 50 per cent. plus something or other.
I want now to deal with the question of hardship. The Minister was guilty of a serious misdirection of the House, in my belief, when he said today that he did not wish to give a direction or statement as to what constituted hardship. There was some inference, however, that, in some other capacity, he would give some sort of guidance. Is this another instance of executive guidance about the carrying out of an Act of Parliament?
Let us look at this in terms of the problems of a borough treasurer, which are much the same whether the local authority be Bourn mouth or Oldham. He has the task of considering what

constitutes hardship. I believe that there is a very close link between Clause 2(1,a), which sets out the limits for rates on a house, and subsection (1,b). By implication, these two provisions suggest that if a rate payment increases by 25 per cent. or £5—whichever is higher—that, in the nature of things, is hardship.
That is the case which is being argued by Hon. Members opposite. They say that if the additional rate demand is 25 per cent. or £5—whichever is the higher—over the preceding rate demand, then, willy-nilly, that is hardship. This means that the majority of people will be contributing a subsidy to help people who in some cases can well afford to pay the increased rate burden. Let us be realistic about this. How is the borough treasurer to ascertain hardship? He will have to issue a document which amounts to a test as to means. How else could he do it? How else, unless he inquires into the income and other means of the appellant, is he able to act for his local authority?
I am not too happy about the Bill. Some relief is given here and there to some unfortunate people who have suffered from the Government's rating legislation. They will see it as a sort of eleventh hour repentance to regain their good will. In Committee, it may be possible to trim it up here and there and to make it easier to understand. However, once again, it must be for the House to determine the criteria of hardship. This is a task which should not be given to local authorities. Clause 1 has been written into the Bill for no reason other than its electoral possibilities.

7.2 p.m.

Mrs. Evelyn Emmet: I must take up the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) on one point. He appeared to be full of suspicions, but I am sure that he is a much nicer man than he seemed and I should like to assure him that we on this side of the House are nicer than he thinks we are.
I welcome the Bill and I think that its introduction is due to the fact that HON. MEMBERS on this side of the House care very much for cases of hardship in their constituencies. It is for that reason and for no other that we have pressed the Minister who has now produced an interim Bill. I do not care whether this


year, next year, or the year after, is election year; if my constituents are suffering hardship, I shall press to have it relieved.
I am very glad that we have this interim Bill, although in some ways it will be difficult for the local authorities to operate—and I speak with some experience after 39 years in local government. I should have thought that there might be a simpler way in which to relieve hardship. I am glad that the central grant has been weighted for the aged as well as for children. Older people are an increasing burden on the social services of local authorities and it is only right that the aged as well as the young should be brought into the picture. But this means that the two extremes, the young and the old, have to be serviced by the working population, and it is time that we considered the whole system of taxation and rates and revised it.
Hon. Members opposite have taken credit to themselves for being the only people who have thought of this, but many of my hon. Friends and I for at least two years have pressed for another look at the whole system of taxation and rating. We must agree that at a time when local government is being reorganised and we have had to face revaluation, it would be extraordinarily difficult for the Minister to tackle this third problem, but I hope that when local reorganisation is out of the way we shall be able to get down to it.
The suggestion which I have made from time to time does not appear yet to have penetrated the Ministerial ear. It is this. People of a certain age and in a certain income group are exempt from Income Tax, and it will be agreed that that is right and proper. Something of the same sort could have been done with rates. That would have been a much simpler way than this to deal with hardship.
I do not know whether even yet the Minister is fully seized of the agonising situation of some older people. They might have given up their old car and may have to give up the telephone which is tremendously important to them for keeping in contact with their family, doctor and tradesmen. They may have to give up their wireless. I know of some in my constituency who lie awake at night and wonder how their small income

will stretch over continually rising rates. Rates to them appear to be a flood water which will engulf them. But a fixed rate demand, or an exemption at an income limit, or something like what is done in respect of Income Tax would immediately relieve these people of this anxiety, not only for this year but for the years ahead, and I hope that the Government will consider it.
I should also like to refer to the regulations which appear to govern valuation officers in their assessment of flats as against houses, and council houses as against other houses. If flats are valued because of the high rate of demand, surely council houses should qualify in the same way in view of the long waiting lists for them. Local authorities lose much rateable value if they have many council houses in their area. It should also be remembered that in most council houses there are people whose earning capacity is sometimes very high compared with that of elderly people occupying flats, whose income is fixed. The council house tenant seems to be better able to bear the increasing rate burden than does the elderly flat dweller.
Also to rate flats too highly is to militate against the movement of older people into smaller accommodation. There are many older people in my constituency who have moved from houses into flats because they were over-housed and who thought that they would be able to get on better in flats, but who found that the rates of the flats were far higher than those of the houses. This comparison of flats with houses and council houses with other houses should be reconsidered most carefully.
I understand that there is to be no backdating of hardship, and that hardship cases will be considered as from 1st April next year. I have several cases in my constituency in which valuers have returned to have another look at accommodation and have then increased the rates over and above the first revaluation, one month, or even three months, after. The unfortunate ratepayer has tried to get used to the shock of revaluation, then finds that he is facing another shock with rates backdated to 1st April due to an error by the valuer. If there is to be no backdating for hardship, I think that where


a valuer has made an error the consequences of that mistake should be borne either by the local authority or by the taxpayers for the rest of that year.
I have made my points. I thank the Minister for helping those of us who brought to his notice cases of hardship, and I am certain that the Bill will be a very useful interim Measure.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: It is most refreshing for some of us on this side of the House to be able to sit and listen to HON. MEMBERS opposite being so critical of the British rating system. Having given some thought to these extremely complicated matters, one finds it difficult to say very much in defence of the more or less bastard system that has developed in this country over hundreds of years.
I was perhaps fortunate—or unfortunate as some might think—in being a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Rating and Valuation Bill, 1961. I was glad to be present this afternoon when the Minister, in his usual agreeable style, opened the debate on this small Bill and gave a lucid exposition of its terms, but had he had the time, or the inclination, to study the debates of 1961, which extended over three months, he would no doubt have found it much more difficult to make the kind of speech that he did today.
We had a general critical survey of the British rating system, with all its absurdities, its anomalies, its illogicalities, its injustices and its failure to face the fact that all taxation, whether local or national, ought to be related to the principle of the ability of the citizen to meet those taxes, and not to some notional figment of the academic or official mind.
I suppose that I would be out of order if I went wider than that in this general reference to a rating system, but it is nevertheless refreshing and welcome to know that the feeling that the British rating system is incapable of being defended is percolating from this side of the House to the other. I do not claim any special virtue in the fact that many of my hon. Friends have always been critical of the rating system, and I welcome one or two of the speeches that

have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Let us consider what has been happening over the last two years. During the debates on the Rating and Valuation Bill, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, now the Home Secretary, was warned time and again of what would happen as a result of that legislation. It is a long time since I had the satisfaction of quoting one of my own speeches, because usually when I have made them that is an end of the matter. Sometimes they are very good speeches, and sometimes they are not so good. I do not often quote my own speeches. I do not like regurgitating food, but, nevertheless, I am going to treat myself to a quotation from one of my speeches so that I can point to hon. Gentlemen opposite and say, "I told you so". My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) told them so with much greater eloquence than I can.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) spent many hours trying to hammer into the skull of the then Minister of Housing and Local Government what would happen, and I said:
I repeat what I have said before—that when this Bill begins to be seen in all its implications, the effect will be seen, in the end, to be that the balance of rateable burden is shifted from industry and commerce to domestic householders.
Whatever the Minister says today, this kind of slapdash legislation is not good enough. He wants this wide power in the nominal interests of purity of valuation. What is the use of having a new figure established for the valuation of houses if, eventually, the Minister says that he will take away 50 per cent. or 75 per cent. or any notional figure? We shall not have a real figure. The right hon. Gentleman may have a valuation list which contains the figure for the 1962 valuation, or any year, but nevertheless, when it is adjusted, one will be left with a bastard figure, as one is today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 20th December, 1960; c. 122–3.]
That has turned out to be the case. There have been so many chippings away, so many adjustments and so many amendments that the whole purpose of trying to bring the valuation lists up to 1961 values has been defeated. This Bill is only one further attempt to mitigate the effect of new valuations, and the figure left will not be the true valuation on the 1961 figure.

Mr. Temple: I would not like to spoil the pleasure the hon. Gentleman is deriving from quoting from his own speech, but would he not agree that, in fact, the share borne by householders is exactly the same as it was before that Bill was passed?

Mr. Price: I could not agree with that. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a debating point without submitting the statistics necessary to prove his argument, I shall not be able to deal with it tonight, but his statement is not true as a general principle. The position differs from town to town, and from locality to locality. It is not true to say that the burden of rates has not shifted. The hon. Gentleman is a considerable expert in these matters, and he is not half as naïve as he would have the House believe. He knows that the burden of rates on dwelling houses is determined by the proportion of industry in relation to the number of houses in the area, the value of those houses and when they were built. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow that point.
I have no intention of making a long and laborious speech.

Mr. MacColl: Long, but not laborious.

Mr. Price: It is not a labour at all; it is quite a pleasure.
There are a number of things to which the Minister did not refer. For example, he did not refer to the fact that when the Rating and Valuation Bill was considered in Committee it was frequently forecast by my hon. Friends and myself that the effect would be to raise the rateable assessments by about 300 per cent. That was our more or less pragmatic judgment. Our forecasts were pooh-poohed. We were told that we were exaggerating, but we have been proved right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, dealt trenchantly, in a polemical way, with this small Measure. I am trying not to incur the displeasure of the hon. Lady the Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet), who thinks that we are nicer than we sound. My hon. Friend dealt with the real issue, which is that this

little Measure is purely a tactical device or strategem to deal with the electoral consequences of this valuation.
It is no use the hon. Lady shaking her head. Bournemounth is most closely affected, and the hon. Member for Bourn mouth, West (Sir J. Eden) agrees with me—at least, if he does not I will gladly give way to him. There are more old folk in Bournemounth, per head of population, than in almost any other town in the British Isles. It is a most desirable, pleasant and salubrious town, in which people who retire on their old-age pension can buy nice little flats or houses at the inflated figures that the Bourn mouth estate agents ask for.

Mrs. Emmet: Is the hon. Member suggesting that however great the hardship is now we should postpone the Bill until after the election?

Mr. M. Stewart: Let us have the election now.

Mr. Price: The hon. Lady is being very provocative. She is tempting me to say something that I might regret later on. But if there is any question about this being an electoral device, it can be disposed of by having an election now—by putting up the shutters in this House and going to the country on this issue.
If you will allow me to be serious for a moment, Mr. Speaker—[Laughter.] I am sorry, but the hon. Lady is asking for this. I could go happily down to Bournemouth and make the sort of speech that I am now making and get away with it, because the people there are very annoyed with the Tory Party about this. I know Bournemouth well, and I have a great respect for it. On one occasion when I was there I had the pleasure of moving some kind of official toast to the Mayor of Bournemouth.
Hon. Members opposite know quite well that the Bill is merely a stopgap Measure to meet the criticism that is being launched against the Government. Rateable values are related to the real values of the hereditaments upon which the rates are levied. I am glad to see that the Minister has returned. I have not said anything about him, but I may, because he argued with me a great deal in Committee in 1961. He put forward


some very good arguments. But when we speak of high rateable values we must remember that in many towns which have a high proportion of those over 65, the property values have been grossly inflated by speculators and all kinds of entrepreneurs who use property as counters in their financial speculations. Rateable values have risen in accordance with the increasing values of the properties to which they are related.
This is a factor which the Minister cannot deal with in a Bill of this kind. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me when I say this—because I have said it many times in Committee—but he has studied these questions with great diligence and he knows the strength of his case, but, by Jove, he knows the weaknesses of it as well. As a Minister it is not his business to admit those weaknesses, but I am entitled to tell him tonight that when the Government lifted the rateable values to the 1961 levels, after having done the same thing in respect of business premises in 1953, they did so knowing that when a high rateable value is put into the hands of any local authority—whatever its political complexion, Tory, Labour, or any other kind—it is a standing incitement to it to increase the rate poundage. Anyone who has anything to do with local government knows that that is so.
Whenever, for purely academic reasons or for theoretical reasons put forward by people in Government Departments or university professors, we raise rateable values, as we did in 1961, we put a tremendous weapon into the hands of every local authority—a weapon which may be used wisely or unwisely.
When we were debating the 1961 Measure in Committee—when the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Home Secretary was the Minister and the present Minister, who was then Parliamentary Secretary, took over a great deal of the work on the Bill—the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the mere fact that rateable value might rise by 200 per cent. or 300 per cent. did not mean that the rates would rise. Of course it did not, because the rate poundage would presumably be reduced in inverse ratio. But that situation

might obtain only for the first year. Everybody knows that once rateable value rise, although there may be an initial reduction in rate poundage, within a few years it is liable to creep back to its previous figure. If it had been 20s. in the £ and had been reduced to 15s., in a few years' time it would probably be back to 20s., and on a much higher valuation. That sort of thing is happening all over the country.
I do not want to develop these points tonight. I am sure that many HON. MEMBERS on both sides of the Committee agree with me in this. I do not agree that the application of this over-65 test is necessarily a fair one. It will determine what grant is available under Clause 1, to be spent at the discretion of a local authority. There may be districts in which there is a very high proportion of children, which will have the effect of reducing the average age, and those districts may very well be put outside the bounds of the Clause, although they need assistance.
I know that Clause 2 provides that a grant can be claimed on another basis altogether, but it does not take sufficiently into account towns with a high unemployment rate. Nobody can tell me that a town which has an oldish population—a town like Bournemouth, or Worthing, or a similar town on the sunny South Coast—and which will benefit from the Bill is in any greater need of assistance than certain towns in Lancashire, such as Hindley in my constituency, which now has an unemployment rate of 6 per cent. Such towns will have many cases of hardship, but they may not qualify under any of the provisions of the Bill.
This is a further piece of slapdash legislation. The 1961 Bill at least was merely a valuation Bill, but this is something more; it is a stratagem introduced to deal with the political situation. That fact is beyond dispute. The present Home Secretary, who dealt with this criticism on the 1961 Bill, said that if there was hardship he would have to find ways and means of introducing an Order to abate that hardship for a term of five years. He was talking in terms of a five years moratorium on increased rates, no doubt expecting that something like this would occur.
When we levy taxes or rates we ought to do so in such a way that, as nearly as possible, they apply with universal force to every citizen. In other words, there should be no uncontrolled discretion available to anybody to vary the rate of taxation on any person. It ought to be clearly laid down that every citizen shall be treated in a similar manner.
Tonight we are considering a Bill which is admittedly a stopgap Measure until the Allen Committee reports. We are dealing with a Bill in respect of which the Minister is asking us to agree to allow uncontrolled discretion to every local authority to pick and choose how it shall deal with its own ratepayers. Is not that so? This is not a democratic principle at all. This is surrendering powers of government to kissing by favour, to pressure groups, to personal relationships, and not to any abiding principle of government or politics at all. I think it is quite wrong that persons who are able to exert pressure, because of some personal advantage or for some other reason, should be in a more favoured position than those who cannot. Therefore, I resist that—

Mr. Anthony Fell: But not with a vote.

Mr. Price: Of course not. If the hon. Member is asking how I am going to vote about it, I will say that I am not proposing to stop some people getting an advantage because I disagree with some parts of the Bill; but I am entitled to criticise the Government strongly because this Measure is a result of their folly of two years ago. Now they are trying to redress the consequences by a slap-dash, pragmatic approach to satisfy their critics in certain parts of the country.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: In so far as this Bill will give reliefs varying from £6 million to £12 million a year, it is to be welcomed. But, apart from that, and having regard to the fact that my right hon. Friend said clearly that this is an interim Measure until the Allen Committee reports, this may be regarded as a mouse of a Bill. It merely papers over the cracks in a decaying rating system. It does not

get down to the fundamental weaknesses of the rating system or of local government finance. It is all very well for right hon. and Hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. J. T. Price), to talk about Hon. Members on this side of the House supporting the introduction of such a Measure for electoral purposes, but what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should remember is that the principal Act on which all legislation of this sort is based is the 1925 Act.
That Act laid down clearly how a rating system should operate. Since the Act was passed there have been no fewer than three Labour Governments and, if the system was so iniquitous, one might have expected that during the lifetime of one of their Governments the Labour Party would have done something about it. I wish to draw the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the fact that the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan, when he was Minister of Health, refused time after time to have any inquiry into the finances of local government, so that it does not lie in the mouths of members of the Labour Party to criticise a Conservative Government for what may seem to be lack of action on this very vexed subject. The reorganisation of local government was resisted by the Labour Party when in office year after year. It was the persistent efforts of Conservative back-bench Members of Parliament which ultimately forced the present Government to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole organisation of local government. Now we are considering something which flows naturally from that development.
Rating is probably the most complicated and complex matter with which we have to deal. It is difficult, indeed it is almost impossible, to find a yardstick with which to obtain an accurate estimate not only as between areas but even between houses which are sometimes in the same street. The system is anachronistic and unfair as between individual ratepayers. In effect, it is a poll tax which bears no relationship to ability to pay. Having said all that—indeed anybody can voice such criticisms about the present rating system—one must add that it is another thing to discover an alternative to the present system.
I join issue with some of my hon. Friends, and certainly with hon. Gentlemen opposite, over the fact that it is not so much a problem of the revaluation of property as of the total amount of rates that individual ratepayers have to pay. What we must consider in this and in subsequent debates on this issue is how we are to find all the money, which we know must be found, to finance the development of our social services, and particularly education. In my constituency there are no very rich or very poor people. There are certain cases of hardship which will benefit from the provisions in the Bill, but I am sure that further substantial increases in the rate demand over the next few years would impose a burden on the great majority of my constituents which they would be unable to bear. Therefore, Parliament must consider seriously how our local government services are to be financed in the future. That, in essence, is what this is all about. It is as simple as that.
I am not convinced that the committee which my right hon. Friend said that he is about to set up will be enough. The subject is so important that nothing less than a Royal Commission, along the lines of the Commission on local government reorganisation, will be sufficient. It may take a little longer, but it is my experience that a Royal Commission would deal with these matters in a thorough and impartial way, and I believe that in the long-term we should get a better result than would be obtained from the sort of committee which my right hon. Friend has in mind.
This Bill will afford a measure of relief, and for that we are grateful. But I wonder whether there are other and better ways in which the relief could have been afforded, particularly in the great conurbation of London. My own local authority pays more than 2s. in the £every year for the Metropolitan Police. I suppose that other great boroughs around London do the same. I know it is suggested that if all this was taken over by the State, and the financing of the police became a State liability, rather than it being partially paid for by local authorities, we should find ourselves with a State police force.
That argument does not bear analysis. If ever a party was elected to office which had the desire to create a State police force, the proliferation of police forces all over the country, as at present would not prove a hindrance to the carrying out of that desire. If it is implied that because we pay a rate of about 2s. or more in the £, we as a borough have some control in the management of that police force, that is a travesty of the facts. We have no influence on the policemen or the disposition of the force. We have no responsibility whatever. That is solely a matter between the Government and the Metropolitan Police. We simply pay. There has always seemed to me a powerful argument for the full payment of all the police in this area to be taken over by the State, and indeed, the cost of the police in the rest of the country.
I come to the vexed question—vexed only in the sense that as a financial problem it is a very serious one—of the development of education services. Over the years, as a result of the Government's progressive policies, these will cost us more and more. Plans announced in the recent Queen's Speech will throw a tremendous and growing burden on ratepayers. Can we sustain that burden without a great falling back in our domestic purchases in other directions? I should have thought that there was a powerful case now for the transfer of the payment of all teachers' salaries from local authorities to the Ministry of Education.
It may be argued that a local authority would then be giving up a lot of control over the education service, but is it seriously argued that a local education authority is any more than an agent of the Ministry of Education for the development of its education policy? Under various education Acts we have had to do precisely as we were told. There seems to be a strong case for transferring the cost of teachers' salaries to the national Exchequer. Of course, this would undoubtedly affect the general grant system, but the net result for the local authority could only be beneficial.
I make these points because the existing rate system takes no account of the ability of the ratepayer to pay, whereas the taxation system operates in just that way. To that extent it seems more equitable than the present rating


system. I want to have a little throw, as it were, at my right hon. Friend the Minister, I think not only the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, but previous Ministers, have been too soft with local authorities on one or two matters. If they had been firmer, they could have benefited ratepayers very considerably.
There is a matter for which my right hon. Friend has direct responsibility, the question of housing and rents. I should have thought that it should have been possible to have made mandatory a differential rents scheme throughout the country. Many authorities—mostly Conservative authorities—have introduced differential rent schemes to the great benefit of local ratepayers. My council pioneered this many years ago, with the result that today—apart from such subsidies as we raise for old-age pensioners' houses—not a penny piece is found by the ratepayer for council house rents or the maintenance of council houses. If that could be enforced on all local authorities in the country, the saving to the ordinary house-owner would be considerable and the present burdens forced upon him would not appear so intolerable.

Sir K. Joseph: I do not want to minimise the principle which my hon. Friend is putting forward, but in terms of actual amount the share of the rate call which is accounted for by rate subsidies to housing authorities is 1·7 per cent.

Mr. Cooper: I am not referring to the amount of house subsidy, which my right hon. Friend provides through the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am referring; to the amount which ratepayers find.

Sir K. Joseph: That is the figure I gave, the rate subsidy towards the housing revenue account.

Mr. Cooper: As my right hon. Friend will realise, averages are very easy to use in rebutting an argument, but there must be many cases in which the figure is much higher, particularly when one has regard to the fact that in Ilford, for example, there is no percentage, for the reasons I have put forward. In any event, if it had been possible to enforce this policy on local authorities there must have been some benefit to the general body of ratepayers.
The second way in which various Ministers have been a little soft has been on the question of borrowing powers of local authorities. Local authorities have been allowed to borrow far too easily in many cases, not exactly for frivolous items, but obviously for things which they wanted, which nevertheless they should have been able to provide out of capital. When one has regard to the volume of the outstanding loan debt of local authorities today it seems a staggering sum of money. It is well in excess of £6,000 million, which on my calculation costs about £350 million or £400 million a year to service. That is something which we have to take into consideration.
I have raised these matters because we are considering a Bill which is intended to relieve hardship. That hardship has arisen because of the great growth in local government expenditure. In this contest we have to consider not only the revaluation of property which has brought this matter to a head, but also the various factors which have built up the great growth in local government expenditure. Because I regard this as of such great importance and as one of the greatest social problems we shall have to face in coming years, I beg my right hon. Friend to think again about the composition of the committee he is to set up and to see if it would not serve the interests of the country and the House better if a Royal Commission were set up.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I listened very intently to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper). I wish that he would realise one thing. It is true that the Labour Party was in power on three occasions, but on two occasions it had no power. The only occasion on which it had power in this House has provided a sheet anchor for Tory Party criticisms ever since. That party never had an anchor of criticism against the Labour Party before. It takes some swallowing to see how, from time to time, right hon. and HON. MEMBERS opposite have swung on that anchor rope. Some time that rope will break and eventually they will get the ducking they deserve.

Mr. Cooper: Would the hon. Member be kind enough to refer to what I said?


I spoke about the 1925 Act and said that since then there have been three Labour Governments. If the hon. Member wishes to know his history, he should know that there have been four Labour Governments, as there was one in 1924.

Mr. Wainwright: I was coming to the point about the 1925 Act. The hon. Member surely realises that the Labour Party was extremely busy in its last period of office putting forward Bills which eventually became Acts. It did not have time to look into the rating question, but that would have been done if it had had a further term of office. I think that I can remove that point from the mind of the hon. Member as a legitimate argument to use in this connection.
Undoubtedly, political influence is at work in the Bill. Hon. Members who read the newspapers on 10th December, the day after the Bill was published, saw that the Bill was regarded as the responsibility of certain Tory back benchers who had used their tremendous influence—occasionally, they can have tremendous influence—upon the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. The Rating and Valuation Act, 1961, has created hardship in many areas, and when it is suggested that it has created more hardship in Bournemouth, Torquay, Brighton and Eastbourne than in the rest of the country, that is not true. It is wrong for Hon. Members to emphasise that one area has been more adversely affected than another and wrong for the Government to introduce a Bill to ease hardship in some areas while overlooking the hardship in other areas.
The Bill has been introduced solely because of the pressure by Tory Members from seaside resorts. If that is so, it does not reflect much credit on the Government. I am always in favour of easing hardship; I have seen too much hardship in my life not to realise what it means. But in this respect hardship is comparative. I do not blame people for retiring to such places as Bournemouth, Brighton, Torquay and Hastings, because they are salubrious places in which to live, but some of the people who have retired there are not suffering hardship. They may have to pay higher

rates, but because they are retired business people they may have sufficient money to pay them and far more money than pensioners in other areas.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Is not the hon. Member aware that the provisions of the Bill do not apply only to Bournemouth and other seaside resorts, but to places all over the country? Many other constituencies will be affected. The Bill is not directed only to some plush seaside resort, but applies also to such cities as Bristol, Birmingham and Manchester. The hardship arises among people who are in difficulties because of age or for financial reasons.

Mr. Wainwright: If the hon. Member had listened to the debate he would have realised why I mentioned those seaside resorts. Because people have retired there, the percentage of the population over 65 is higher than in the rest of the country, and these areas will benefit from the Bill.
This has been one of the major points of the debate. The Bill arises from pressure by Hon. Members opposite from seaside resorts who are, rightly, being pressed by their electorate to ease the hardship. The Government have given way to that pressure. If such pressure can be used, it means that democracy can work—but democracy of a kind; for it means that the greatest interest of Hon. Members opposite is in people living in their own constituencies and that they forget other people in the country who may not qualify under Clauses 1 or 2 for easement of the hardship caused by the 1961 Act.
The Rent Act, 1957, also had some bearing on this hardship, and it greatly affected people whom Hon. Members are trying to help through the Bill, in that property prices rose enormously in the seaside resorts where property was in demand by people who wanted to retire there. Sir Charles Clore and others made fortunes out of this. When people talk of the effect of the 1961 Act they should also bear in mind what has happened in the country while the Government have not controlled land prices and property values. In 1947, Sir Charles Clore purchased a business for £10,000. In 1961, it was valued at £20 million. Where did that come


from? It did not come out of the sky. This has happened under a Tory Government. If there is hardship in the seaside resorts, why did not the Minister heed the warnings of my hon. Friends and set up a committee to look into the whole rating structure?
I am worried in case the Allen Committee takes longer to report because of this interim Bill. We shall not vote against the Bill or oppose it in principle, although there are some Clauses which we shall oppose in Committee.
Hon. Members opposite have today referred constantly to the ability to pay. I have never known a previous occasion on which Hon. Members opposite have so frequently referred to the ability to pay. They say that the Rating and Valuation Act is wrong because it takes no account of ability to pay. They want provision whereby the man should pay according to his ability. I hope that they will continue to say that, because I have always believed that a man ought to pay according to his ability and not when he cannot pay without hardship.
I am sorry that the Minister has not introduced a far better Bill than this. There are parts of the country where there is unemployment and where elderly people have great difficulty. This is especially true when they are just about the level of the National Assistance Board rate, for they have greater hardship than many people in the seaside resorts. Possibly they will receive no easement under the Bill. It depends on who will decide what is hardship.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The National Assistance Board would take care of any increase in rates.

Mr. Wainwright: I wish the hon. Member would listen. I spoke of those just above the National Assistance Board level. If the hon. Member makes such an interjection it is clear that he is not listening to what is being said.
I know that the National Assistance Board rates would take into account any increase in local rates and any increase in rents, but there are many retired people who are just above National Assistance Board level, who are living longer perhaps than was expected—which is a good thing—and whose capital is dwindling away. They have great difficulty—and they have not left the district in which

they earned their money. They will suffer as much as those who have bought houses in the seaside resorts.
I am shocked that the Minister has not brought in a Bill sufficiently wide to take into account every person over 65 anywhere in the country. The person who lives in a population where the percentage of old people is less than 10 per cent. is just as much entitled to help as the person who lives in a seaside resort. The assistance under the Bill will go to authorities which have a population containing more than 10 per cent. of elderly people. Where the percentage is less than 10 per cent., the local authority will not receive the same assistance.

Sir K. Joseph: I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but he must appreciate that the evidence which has been sent to me shows that in general—obviously, it cannot be precise—hardship is concentrated in those areas where there is also a concentration of elderly people. Clause 2 gives power to local authorities all over this country to meet individual cases of hardship. If those cases of hardship are met in such areas where there is no concentration of elderly people, and 50 per cent. of the cost is borne by local ratepayers, on the evidence so far received by the Government that will be relatively small in total amount. But I am open to receive new evidence.

Mr. Wainwright: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. But the pressure on the Government from the Tory back benchers arose from Hon. Members representing constituents who had retired to seaside resorts and who were in financial difficulties through having to pay the extra rate burden. It is entirely wrong to draw this percentage distinction, because hardship remains hardship whether the percentage of elderly in the population is over 10 per cent. or under 10 per cent. To use a percentage of 10 per cent. to decide on a major Clause for easing hardship must have been done without realising that many old-age pensioners who retired to seaside resorts were business people who could probably afford to pay the increased rate burden far better than could many pensioners living inland.
The Government have rushed the Bill because of pressure brought upon them by Tory back benchers representing seaside resorts.

Mr. E. G. Willis: It was to save a few Tory seats.

Mr. Wainwright: The hon. Member for Ilford, South spoke about education. There are certain expenses which local authorities are bearing which the central Government should bear. This is not the first time that I have said that the central Government should bear the cost of teachers' salaries. I hope that this will be in the mind of the Government in the near future. It will have to be in the near future, because the Government will not be there for long.
It is essential that the rate burden on local authorities should be eased, because as time passes it becomes heavier and heavier. Local authorities provide certain services. They provide home helps, a valuable service. They organise clubs. They provide facilities for elderly people. They find it difficult. I hope that the Government will devote much thought to what the local authorities are trying to do and recognise the heavy cost they have to bear. I hope that the Minister will devote serious thought to improving the Bill. I hope that the suggestions which we shall make in Standing Committee will be accepted by the Government. The Bill has been fashioned crudely and has been introduced in haste.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I welcome the Bill. Hon. Members opposite, certainly the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), will probably say, "Well you may. You represent Blackpool". When a Bill is designed to help those on low fixed incomes and old-age pensioners it is difficult not to help towns like Blackpool. All through this debate seaside resorts, as they have been called, have been caricatured. In Blackpool there is street after street of houses where people came to retire perhaps as long ago as the mid-nineteen thirties. Many of the people are very old now. Many of them are widows who live alone. It is difficult to reconcile the genuine hardship which I have found in such streets with statements which have been made in this debate.
This is admittedly an interim Measure. I will not criticise it in detail. It is all too easy to do that. I am one of those mentioned by the hon. Member

for Dearne Valley who harried the Minister to do something about this problem. I argued with my right hon. Friend. I took delegations to see him. I chased him in the Lobbies. I brought Black pool's problem to his notice. I told him that we have people on low fixed incomes who are experiencing hardship from increases in rates. I told him that we have old-age pensioners. I asked him if nothing was to be done to ease their burden. Therefore, it does not now lie in my mouth to criticise the Bill. Although I shall go on to say one or two things about its provisions, I welcome it generally.
This evening we should recognise what we are doing generally by introducing another patch on the rating system. In April of this year, for the first time for many years, rating valuations were uniform. They all related to present values. I should have thought that it was with the greatest reluctance that the Minister was compelled by the hardship which came to light to move away from a situation in which anomalies had been eliminated. With the obvious exception of agriculture, which seems always to be an exception, the anomalies which had been prevalent and had cursed us throughout this century had been eliminated.
The anomalies which will be created by the Bill do not need repeating. There is the difficulty of assessing hardship. There is the obvious fact that different local authorities will assess hardship differently. There is the fact that people will have to go to their local councils and put before them the facts of how they live and spend their money. Something similar to a rent rebate system will have to be applied to decide whether such people qualify for the hardship grant. These are obvious anomalies.
One anomaly goes to the root of the matter. Some old people will be too proud to expose their poverty; they will not want to go to their local authorities. They will represent a high proportion of the total. Often those who do not apply are the very salt of the earth; they say to themselves, "No matter what happens, I intend to pay my way, even if it means cutting down on coal or food." If they do not apply, they will have to pay at least one-half towards the contribution that goes to those who


apply. The rate which is used for the hardship cases must be found as to one-half by the local authority. The proportion found by the local authority will come from the local rates and will be borne, at least in part, by those who do not apply because they will not expose their poverty to public gaze—at any rate, to the gaze of those who make inquiries.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman is referring to Clause 5. It applies equally to lots of youngsters who will have no case on which to base their claim that they are suffering hardship. They, too, will be paying additional rates in the locality.

Sir K. Joseph: Why should not they be able to base their claim for hardship, if the jump in rates due to revaluation in fact causes them hardship?

Mr. Miscampbell: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's intervention. I entirely agree that they, too, may apply and get their rebate for hardship. I raise this matter simply to point out that once again the House is starting on the path of creating anomalies. I know that this is merely an interim Bill. I hope that it is to be only an interim Bill. One difficulty which has arisen in dealing with the rating problem has been the anger engendered in those who find that there are anomalies between themselves and their neighbours. This was highlighted in the difficulties which arose in the early part of this year. Houses had been rated on a 1939 valuation and had continued so to be valued Commercial properties were changed first to their full 1956 valuation. It was then reduced to 80 per cent. Industry was first 25 per cent. and then 50 per cent. It was useless to explain to a householder, who complained that his rates had risen on the new valuation whereas the rates of the shop next door had not risen, that what had happened was that the shop had been revalued five years before and he was merely coming up to its valuation. Although this was true, the householder did not find it an easy argument to accept.
Although I accept the Measure, I do so reluctantly because of the anomalies which will arise. The fact that such

anomalies as I have mentioned will occur means that we are piling up for ourselves further problems. It is clear that we cannot go on curing each problem that arises by an interim Measure. We must now come to a conclusion. We must say, "Enough is enough. The time has come for a full review", I was very pleased that my right hon. Friend said that this is exactly what is to happen.
I utter one cautionary word. I know that the Allen Committee is inquiring into the question of hardship. Another committee is to inquire into the relationship of central Government funds and local authority funds. As I understand it, another committee which has not yet been appointed is to inquire into the whole rating system. I hope that this latter committee will be a Royal Commission, but, if it is not, it must be the most powerful committee possible. It must examine every form of revenue raising open to local authorities. What is required about all else in rating is knowledge and information for those who must deal with rating problems in local authorities. One difficulty has been that when councillors and officials have discussed within their councils rating and the possible alternatives there has never beer sufficient information available to them. What would clear the air more tan anything else would be if we now decided to have a full inquiry into all possible alternatives so that all the facts and information could be before those who form opinion in local councils.

Mr. Wainwright: Has the hon. Gentleman taken account of the fact that this interim Bill is full of shortcomings? If there is to be a full inquiry after the Allen Commmittee reports, it may be a long time before the important committee he suggests recommends how all the existing ills are to be cured.

Mr. Miscampbell: I agree that it will take some time. I understand the hon. Gentleman's impatience. Until I turned my mind to the question of rates I had not understood what patience was necessary. We shall not get in six months what we have not had in 25 years. Time is relative. The hon. Gentleman understands that this problem is not easy of solution.
I conclude with this plea, that we should have a full investigation of all the alternatives. I believe that at the end of the day we shall come to the conclusion that the present system is basically satisfactory. It may be very difficult to find a more satisfactory system. Nevertheless, every avenue ought to be explored. Everyone ought to be able to understand what the alternatives are, the advantages and disadvantages. Then, and only then, shall we get some satisfaction from a system which people at present find difficult to understand.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. William Small: I rise to give some instances of the practical application of rating relief in Scotland. The maximum dissemination of information is required to indicate where rating releif can be obtained. One difficulty is to be found in the matter of discretion. Many local authorities in Scotland exercise discretion, but are, nevertheless, deficient in giving the necessary information to the ratepayers.
Most local authorities state on the rate demand that application can be made for rate relief. The criterion is inability to pay. But I would remind the House that when a person is unable to pay the situation is very humiliating, particularly in the case of, say, a spinster. These are facts of life. I have dealt with them as a member of a local authority. I have given rate relief. I have often found that among the members of a local church choir, and in other places, the fact that a certain person has applied for rate relief soon becomes public knowledge. On the other hand, when people who are most in need, with fixed incomes, in poor health, having had perhaps two operations in one year, apply for relief, the human element does not always become common knowledge.
I should like to tell the House how some of my colleagues and I operated rate relief. We encouraged people to apply. We also took into account such circumstances as when a man of 79 or 80 years of age had resided in a town for 60 years and had paid rates during the period. We considered the prospect of his paying rates for the next five years, and we said, "Perhaps we should let him off at the end of the year." The question of what criterion

one should use to decide whether people are unable to pay, is difficult. I might go from London to live in Bournemouth and, after residing there for a year, apply for rate relief, while a man living next door to me may have paid rates for 50 years and may be in worse circumstances than I. Yet he may not want his poverty to be known publicly.
I have had much experience of this sort of case. There are many cases of people who are not very well known in the area in which they live, who apply for relief and are relieved of two-thirds of their rates, while others who have lived in that same town all their lives are disinclined to apply for relief. We ought to decide on a criterion, such as, for example, where a man has lived in an area for a certain length of time and has paid his rates for, say, 50 years.
Let us take the example of a borough with a population of 10,000, of whom 500 apply for rate relief. The clerk to the local authority makes an assessment in respect of those 500 applicants and calculates what the cost would be to the local authority. I am opposed to that kind of systematic relief, where 500 people apply and they are all relieved to the extent of two-thirds. An investigation should be made into the individual circumstances of each case, and I think that it would be reasonable to consider the length of time that an applicant has lived in the area.
If there is an application from 500 people, the clerk says, "This is costing the local authority £2,000, so we will let everybody off with a third". The circumstances of a spinster and those of an old man of 80 can differ. I believe from experience that there should be a 10-year residential qualification in the area before the hardship rule is applied.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) will not expect me to roam the heights of Scotland with him. I listened with much interest to some of the practical points which he made. He avoided—and I congratulate him for it—firing the political broadsides which some Hon. Members opposite have done and then gone out of the Chamber to keep their powder dry. Listening to the arguments put forward


by some Hon. Members opposite, one would think that every person over 65 years of age was bound to vote Tory. Since we have had four Labour Governments, there is probably jolly good reason why they should.
The relief for those over 65, as I see it—and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree with me—is to correct the rating balance between industrial and residential property. My right hon. Friend's predecessor stated in the House that, with revaluation, the average increase in cost to the individual ratepayer would not be more than 33⅓ per cent. This has nothing to do with lush, Tory seaside seats. I represent a seaside constituency of which I am very proud.
Clause 1 is a very practical way of correcting the difference between industrial rating value and residential rating value. It must be obvious to all Hon. Members that people over 65 are probably not in industry. Therefore, there are not factories in their area providing additional rates relief. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) mentioned Burke. I think that it was the same gentleman who said that people paid taxes in sorrow and rates in anger. When injustice arises in the rates, people get extremely angry.
I have had a large number of petitions on this matter. Many people have come to see me in my constituency about it, and I have been able to put reasoned cases to my right hon. Friend on their behalf. Hon. Members opposite delight in calling back bench Members on this side Lobby fodder, whatever that may mean, at one moment and then in calling us a pressure group to influence the Minister at the next moment. They must make up their minds on what they expect us to be.
One problem which presents itself particularly in the seaside resorts is that the rating system is dependent on the rental value of a property. The capital value is nothing to do with it directly. What matters is what the property would collect in rent. Because bungalows can fetch reasonably high rents and because they are suitable for families to occupy, possibly for holidays, the balance of rateable value over the whole street can be upset because one or two bungalows have commanded a high rent.

This, I suggest, throws the whole thing out of balance. Most of my constituents who have come to see me are bungalow dwellers.
I should like to read an extract from a letter which sets out the typical situation of 200 or 300 of my constituents who have been to see me. I think that it will indicate to HON. MEMBERS opposite that this is not a problem for lush businessmen who have retired to the seaside. This letter is self-explanatory. It states:
After fifty years' railway service in the North, I retired at the age of 65…and subsequently came to live in Sand gate where I purchased a new, small type two-bed roomed bungalow (with no garage) suitable for my wife and self. To enable me to do this I had economised and made considerable sacrifices during my working years as I had no desire to become dependent on any assistance from any source whatever, either local authority or otherwise, not ever having had to do so previously. In order to help in this connection, instead of retiring five years earlier, as I could have done, I stayed on in order to obtain a larger superannuation and acquire a little more by way of savings to provide, I hoped, for the remainder of our time.
On retirement my railway superannuation was, of course, supplemented by the Government retirement pension, which, as you will be aware, was increased in May last by £42 18s. p.a. for a married couple…Since then the rating assessment of my bungalow has been increased from £42 gross value, £32 rateable, to £155 gross and £110 rateable, which at the present Folkestone rate of 10s. 11d. in the £ involves a payment of rates increased from £39 1s. 4d. to £60 0s. 10d. p.a., i.e., an additional £20 19s. 6d. p.a. This, plus the water rate"—
this is the first time that any reference has been made to water rates during this debate—
which has been increased from £5 6s. 8d. p.a. to £7 15s. 10d. p.a., i.e., £2 9s. 2d. more…These two make an extra £23 8s. 8d. p.a. to pay which takes up over half the additional retirement pension increase.
He makes the case that he is a believer in thrift. I hold the view that any nation which does not encourage thrift must at some time become bankrupt.
The machinery of appeals has been clearly discussed by many Hon. Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Miscampbell) has made a number of the points which I wanted to make. I will not repeat them as I wish to give other Hon. Members an opportunity of speaking. I should, however, like to put one or two points


concerning the practical difficulties behind the Bill. A number of elderly people are nervous about disclosing information concerning their possessions. They regard it as almost wrong to do so. I never succeed in explaining to them, however, that they have completed their Income Tax forms without fear. The local authorities will be put in an invidious position in ascertaining the extent of hardship.
Bearing in mind the letter which I have quoted from a constituent of mine who has to pay 50 per cent. more, I should have thought that to obviate the operation of the appeal machinery and to save embarrassment and delay, my right hon. Friend could provide in the Bill for automatic relief to be given when the percentage increase which a ratepayer has to pay exceeds x for which purpose a percentage of about 33⅓ would probably be right. This would give a good deal of comfort to those who are worried about the future. They are very anxious about it, God bless them, and they need the greatest care and help. We could quickly relieve them of their worry by providing for automatic relief when their increased payments exceed x.
The Bill is likely to cause a great deal of complication. I refer specially to Clause 8 and to a point which so far has not been mentioned concerning the splitting up of hereditaments. In the case of a moving population in a seaside town, it is extremely difficult for a local authority to assess who is the occupier at a given time.
Equally, I should like my right hon. Friend, if he can, to make it clear, on the question of hardship, when hardship has been established and the rebate has been made to a person and that ratepayer has the enterprise to take in a lodger, whether hardship will be deemed no longer then to apply. These are the sort of factors which I believe have got to be sorted out, but as they are items for consideration in Committee I will not detain the House by developing that theme.
I do not accept that this is a panic Measure. I think it is a natural development of the revaluation and is a first look at the difficulties. My right hon. Friends all the way through the debate

have indicated to us that they expected revaluation to have difficulties. This Bill is a natural development of revaluation, an interim Measure to give relief, and it will be followed, I believe, by a proper look at the rating system of this country. That, I accept, is long overdue, but when the baby is born I am sure it will be a sturdy and healthy one.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I think that my hon. and right hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate have been less than kind to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, if the remarks we have had during the last one or two speeches are to be taken seriously. My hon. Friends said that this is a Measure designed to safeguard the constituencies and political interests of Hon. Members on the other side of the House.

Mr. Willis: Hear, hear.

Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend says "Hear, hear", but I am not sure that he is right. It is only coincidence.
Having been 12 years in power, having seen the effects not only of the last revaluation but of the revaluation before that, it is only a coincidence that within months of a General Election the right hon. Gentleman trots out a Measure of this kind, a Measure which, in one's most generous mood, one can only describe as a panic Measure, because one has merely to look at the full implications of the Clause 5 as it relates to local authorities and the difficulty of administration. If what the right hon. Gentleman said in his intervention is true, when I previously intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell), then one can see how panicky, and how unworkable, the Bill is in its present form.
The Bill is in two parts. Clause 1 deals with those areas which have within their boundaries a given percentage of people who are 65 years of age or over. Again, of course, it is only incidental that the towns which will benefit by this provision are the seaside resorts. It is only coincidence that Bournemouth and Blackpool and other seaside resorts are given special privileges in the Bill. Because if it is the intention of the Government to relieve hardship for


persons who are aged 65 or over, why stipulate a percentage of 10, as the Bill stipulates in Clause 1?
Is it of greater concern to us that a person living in Blackpool or Bournemouth aged 65 or over is suffering hardship because of rate revaluation compared with a person living in the Forest of Dean? If the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) says that the Bill is not intended specifically to benefit seaside resorts, can he explain why the framers of the Bill, recognising that it would be more favourable to such resorts, incorporated the Clause 1 percentage in the Bill?

Mr. Costain: I thought I had made clear that people over 65 are not employed in industry. It is coincidental that they happen to be living in seaside resorts. The purpose of Clause 1 is to compensate for industrial rating which industrial towns get automatically.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman simply makes the point that I am making.

Mr. Costain: But in a different way.

Mr. Loughlin: If hardship is imposed upon aged people through revaluation and the hardship is imposed irrespective of where they live, why should there be preferential treatment for seaside resorts?

Mr. Costain: It is coincidental that seaside resorts have less industry than industrial towns.

Mr. Loughlin: Of course it is coincidental. That is what I said when I began. But the Bill is designed not specifically to meet hardship suffered by old persons. Clause 1 is the main Clause; I shall show that Clause 2 as related to Clause 5 is unworkable.
I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is listening to the debate. Apparently, he has time to chat with his colleague on the Front Bench. He is having a little giggle. It is his responsibility to note the comments made so that he can face the issues in Committee. He ought to be preparing now for the Committee stage. I hope that in Committee my hon. Friends will deal with the situation in Clause 1.There is an easy way to

ensure that the relief will be more equitable—by a simple Amendment in Committee to reduce the percentage.
I will not presume to instruct my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) but I hope that he will seriously consider moving an Amendment to reduce this figure. What does "hardship" mean? The Government have been repeatedly asked that question. It would save a lot of argument if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us now precisely what it does mean. I do not suggest that people in seaside resorts are all retired from industry and commerce. Many of them retired a considerable time ago and are on fixed incomes, sometimes superannuation payments related to the value of money at the time of retirement. They are suffering hardship because of revaluation.
But unless we know precisely what "hardship" is we might very well have people claiming for hardship when in reality they could afford the additional burden. The Parliamentary Secretary has not responded to my suggestion that he should state what "hardship" means. I understand, however, that it does not mean poverty.

Captain Elliot: Not necessarily poverty.

Mr. Loughlin: It is people above the National Assistance Board scale who are likely to apply for this. If it does not necessarily mean poverty, does it mean that a person with capital resources or capital in the bank, but with a fixed income which has been impaired by revaluation, can claim for hardship? If the Bill means that, then it will be inequitable in its application between one area and mother, and we shall be laying down the principle that persons who could carry the additional burden will be granted relief because they live in a certain area while others who cannot afford it, whether aged or not, will be penalised because they happen to live in another area.
I do not want to say any more about Clause 1, except that I hope that the Press will take note—what is the Parliamentary Secretary giggling at? If he has something to say, let him get up and say it. He cannot keep giggling on his own. Does he want to get up? He does not have the courage to get


up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am in order. I know how far I can go.
I hope that the Press will take note that this is not a Bill merely to relieve the rating burden on the aged, which is the impression which has been current during the last few weeks. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the application of Clause 2 as related to Clause 5 and made clear the issue to which I hope the Press will give publicity. Rightly or wrongly, the impression has been given that the sole purpose of the Bill is to give rating relief to aged people, but the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that it would apply to all, to the young and the old.
Many people will have to bear the onerous burden of an increase in rates, and many people in the lower income brackets may want to take advantage of the Bill. If many people of the lower income groups apply for relief, many local authorities, especially where there is high unemployment which is generally concurrent with low wage rates, will find it administratively impossible to consider hardship. There will be two reasons for this. First, the machinery will not exist. Additional personnel will have to be brought in to establish a machine to handle the enormous number of cases which will be presented.
In addition, these are not prosperous areas, and every time a local authority grants relief to an applicant it will itself have to find slightly less than 50 per cent. of that relief I think that one hon. Gentleman said that the local authority would itself have to find 50 per cent., but I believe that the figure is slightly less.
Let us assume that in a number of places the increase in rates results in hardship in the sense that that phrase has been used in this debate. Let us also assume that that hardship arises in areas where 10 per cent. of the population are over 65. If the number of applications for relief is excessive, will the local authorities use the discretion given to them in the Bill, if in doing so they place an additional burden on the remainder of the ratepayers? I think that Clause 2 will be impossible to administer. It is likely to place a tremendous burden on local authorities because of the relief given to applicants,

and I hope that the Minister will reconsider it.
The Bill is of little consequence. It will meet the demands that have been made on the Government by Hon. Members opposite who represent seaside resorts. These Hon. Members have done a good job.

Mrs. Emmet: I do not represent a seaside resort.

Mr. Loughlin: I was not making a personal reference to the hon. Lady. I did not even know that she had had a chat with her right hon. Friend about this matter.
I am saying that, in the main, the Bill is designed to meet the representations which have been made to the Government by hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent seaside resorts. They have done a good job for their constituents. I congratulate them, not merely on the pressure that they have brought to bear on the Government, but on their timing. They know that if something is likely to be popular, this is the time to press the Government to do it. The Government's hopes of electoral victory in the General Election are dim. They are scraping the barrel in the hope that they will not lose quite as many seats as they will if they do not pander to popular demand.

8.59 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: At the end of a long debate on a rather short Bill it is difficult to find something new to say, and I hope that I shall not weary the House by repeating some of the arguments that have been put forward. That inhibition does not apply to hon. Gentlemen opposite—in particular the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin)—who have said time and again that this Bill has been introduced for electoral reasons. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West even said that we had been in office for 12 years and had not brought in this Bill in that time. He may not be aware of the fact that revaluation took place this year. The hardship has been caused by the sudden upward movement of rates. Naturally we could not take action to correct that movement before it took place.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to be fair about this. I said that in addition to the period of 12 years there had been two rate revaluations, but that the Government had started to look properly at the problem only when the General Election was near.

Captain Elliot: I shall not go on with that point. The latest revaluation has had by far the greatest effect in increasing rates. The Bill recognises the fact that this great increase may bring hardship, and it has the merit of drawing our attention to the effect upon individuals of our imperfect system of raising money by rates. That is a new principle, which is to be welcomed. The Bill also makes an attempt to bring relief to those who really need it, and that is a proper objective. For those reasons, I am glad to see the Bill introduced. I say that in view of some criticisms which I now propose to make.
The Bill certainly bears all the hallmarks of what is called an interim Measure. There is one hall-mark which it does not bear, however, and that is the hallmark of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. To my mind this is not the sort of Bill that he would have introduced if he had had his way. Although the Bill has the right objectives, I have some doubts whether, owing to the practical difficulties and the form of the Bill, those objectives will be achieved.
I appreciate that people over 65—probably retired, and living on fixed incomes—may as a class suffer more than others from an increase in rates, although by no means all of them can be put into that category. That means that the selectivity of the Bill is rather blunted.
I may be speaking from insufficient knowledge, but it also appears to me that the identification of these people may place a burden upon local authorities. We know the difficulties of identification that arise in getting people to come forward for such things as National Assistance. I presume that, as a start, the identification will be through the State pension system. I know of no other means. But many elderly people do not draw pensions. They will have

to be searched out by some other means.
Further, I am not sure what local authorities will do with the bonuses they receive. The Bill provides that this money shall be payable in aid of the revenues of authorities generally. As the hon. Member for Fulham Mr. M. Stewart) says, this will presumably ease the rate burden on everybody. That is an excellent thing, but it does not seem logical that this relief should be assessed on the basis of the number of people over 65 years of age living in any one area. There might be other criteria for assessing what assistance should be given.
Clause 2 deals with hardship, and that is a worthy objective—but will the Clause achieve it? First, we must define hardship. There is poverty. The payment of a few extra pounds from a person's income may mean cutting down on food, heating and perhaps clothing. That is plain enough. Secondly, there is the budget upset. An elderly couple—retired or not—with their own house, and living on a tight budget, may be affected to the extent even of having to give up their house and leave the district.
I am inclined to think that this Bill is aimed at helping both groups and I was glad when my right hon. Friend seemed to reinforce that view. Certainly I believe that, for the benefit of local authorities and to mitigate their difficulty, it is important that that should be crystal clear. The task of local authorities in deciding who is suffering hardship, and what sort, will be extremely difficult, although I am sure, despite what one or two HON. MEMBERS have said, that that is a task for the local authorities We must give them all the help we can. The most difficult part will be to decide on hardship through an upset in the personal budget which cannot be classed as poverty. There will be sure to be many claims under this head, and it will strain the resources of local authorities to the limit to sort them out.
Most Hon. Members probably saw the article in The Times of Monday, 16th December and one or two Hon. Members have quoted from it. The hon. Member for Fulham said that the article contained only one concrete proposal with


which he did not agree, I do not Know whether it is the one which I picked out and which I thought was rather good. No one else has read it, and so I will.
…the simple provision that no ratepayer shall as a direct consequence of revaluation be called on to pay in any year a proportional increase of more than so much, say a fifth, over the year before".
I thought that a rather good idea. This Bill deals not only with the years of revaluation; it is a continuing Measure. In the interests of simplicity and practicability, and in order to look after persons who suffer hardship but not poverty, surely it would be best to cover the revaluation years only by relief given on a broader basis, as is suggested in that paragraph in The Times. After all it is in the revaluation years that the rises occur which cause hardship. Subsequently the Allen Report will be available as a more detailed consideration of the problem.
Assessing hardship from the stand-point of poverty, where an extra bill may deprive a person of some of the necessities of life, is not so difficult. It could be done by considering the income, resources and needs of the person, as is done already in respect of the payment of National Assistance. Then one of the expenses which is taken into account is rates, and those in need, having paid their rates, can get the money refunded by a National Assistance payment.
If the Bill becomes law, it would seem that some duplication might occur. To my mind, one of the merits of National Assistance is that not only income but need is considered, and we should not discard that approach now that we have this Bill. It seems logical, and surely it would be a simpler process, if relief from rates were taken out of National Assistance and administered by local authorities. Councils would then have to assess incomes, as they would have to do in respect of the provisions in this Bill, and they would assess the needs of individuals and fix their rates accordingly. No additional money would come from the Exchequer and a much more simple system would result.
I welcome this Bill as the first, if faltering, step to bring help to some people who need it. I hope that there will be changes made in its provision

before it is placed on the Statute Book, and that it is not beyond the wit of Parliament to bring about such changes.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain Elliot) deserves congratulations for the patience with which he sat through the long and rather weary debate waiting his opportunity to say that he thought the Government were completely wrong from the beginning to the end of the Bill. If he is to join us in the jolly little frolic upstairs, I hope that in Committee he will try with his vote to get the Bill altered and not merely make big speeches on Second Reading as so many Government supporters do and then be surprisingly quiet when a critical Division comes in the Committee.
The Minister deserves at least credit for the determination with which he produced the Bill this afternoon. I was reminded of the confidence trickster who, having been found guilty by the jury without the jury leaving the box, is asked by the judge whether he has anything to say before sentence is passed on him, and says, "I will not at this moment choose to be polemical." The idea of the right hon. Gentleman not wanting to be polemical when he has been on the defensive from the very beginning to the end of discussion of the Bill when no one on either side of the House has said that this is not too little and too late!
I propose to say something in a moment about the background to the Bill, but, first of all, I want to ask some questions about the Bill itself. Will the Parliamentary Secretary try to make a little clearer than the Minister did precisely what consultation took place with local authority associations? On these difficult Bills we always get tossed out, in the course of a Second Reading speech, the phrase "this has all been agreed with the local authority associations." Was there formal consultation with them, or was it merely informal and confidential communication at officer level? That rather weighs our assessment of the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) mentioned that the Urban District Councils' Association did not seem to accept it very enthusiastically. The London County Council


is distinctly lukewarm about the shape of the Bill and does not like the first Clause; very few people seem to do. It would, therefore, be helpful if we could have some clearer picture of the nature of the consultation and precisely what it was. It is a little unfair in general terms to commit local authority associations to something when they may not have been clearly, categorically and publicly consulted at member level.
Coming to the details of the Bill, the points which have been made about Clause 1 seem to have much weight. Why do we need this Clause? Why can we not do the whole thing with Clause 2? We have a general grant which already has a weighting for old people. We passed a general grant Order only a few nights ago in which we altered the weighting of the general grant. We could easily have had a further alteration which could have paid more attention to the old people weighting in the general grant formula. In that way without any appearance of special pleading and twisting the law to suit party convenience, we could have got a substantial amount of assistance to those local authorities.
A number of HON. MEMBERS have talked as if Clause 1 were something to do with relieving the needy ratepayer, but, as was pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton, this is not a need Clause at all. There is nothing in it which will directly help the general ratepayer. It is a form of general grant, a rather curious form, at £5 a nob. It has nothing to do with whether there is industrial development in an area or not.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) seemed to be under the impression that it would provide special assistance to those areas which have no industrial development and which will not benefit from the re-rating of industry. There is nothing of that in the Clause. It is purely concerned with a capitation grant in respect of old people. There are many other criteria of need which could equally well have been taken and many other criteria of heavy rate expenditure and comparatively low rating resources.
Clause 2 appears to be the most flexible part of the Bill, but the House

is being asked to pass the Bill when in the Memorandum it is simply said:
It is impossible to make any useful estimate of the amount of grant likely to be paid".
We are supposed to be setting a good example to local authorities in economy of expenditure and wise and prudent housekeeping. Yet we are being asked to pass a Money Bill which will increase taxation without being given any idea of how much money is involved. We are not asking to the nearest 6d., but is it the same amount as in Clause 1 or substantially more? I hope that in the reply to the debate we shall be given a little more detailed information about the effect of Clauses 2 and 5 taken together.
I was deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) for having intervened in the debate, because this is a matter of which Scottish local authorities have had some practical experience—working this kind of machine of rating relief. He put some points which were very much the same sort of points as those put by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who also has great knowledge of local government. They pointed out how difficult it would be to find the people to whom one should give relief, and they asked how to persuade them to take the relief and what criterion of hardship local authorities are to adopt.
Local authorities already have to work the provision for the derating of charities, the mandatory and discretionary rating relief for charities, which is difficult enough and gives enough headaches. To give them, in addition, this extremely invidious and difficult question to decide, perhaps on a very large scale, the kind of test to be applied in this case seems to be putting a great burden on them without, at the moment, much assistance in how they are to tackle it.
What part is the district auditor to take? Here is a discretion put on the local authority to hand out money, as it were, in the form of rating relief. Will the district auditor apply tests, as in the case of rents, where he intervenes to try to define what seems to be a reasonable rent? Will he have his own preconceived idea about what is and what is not hardship? Are local authorities going to get into trouble if they adopt a more


generous approach to the problem? May we have South Coast Poplarism? Is there a risk of Bournemouth councillors going to gaol because they have too widely interpreted the meaning of hardship? What is the test which will be applied? Will it be a mandatory test? I understand that it is entirely at the discretion of local authorities and that some may adopt it and some may not.
This is interesting in view of what was said by the hon. Member for Ilford, South. He asked that differential rents should be mandatory and hoped that the Minister would introduce them. Are we eventually to have mandatory differential rents and at the same tune to have this rating relief left completely discretionary? There seems some obscurity in the Conservative Party on precisely what is their attitude to local authorities—to what degree they wish to leave local authorities discretion and to what degree they intend to force them to carry out the Government's policy in these directions.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain precisely the point in Clause 5—I am not necessarily saying that I disagree with it—about the "plussage" on the grant? I understand that an authority gets 50 per cent. Grant on the rebate, but that if it goes beyond 3 per cent. of the gross rate income the authority gets an extra grant. This is a very interesting precedent in view of the efforts which have been made in the rate deficiency grant to cut down on the higher level of local authority grants. If an authority goes above the average expenditure, it gets less than its full share of the rate deficiency grant. In this case we have the complete reverse, the more money it gives away in concessions, the bigger the grant. This seems to be open to much danger, particularly when there is no guidance on precisely which standards local authorities will adopt.
I want to look at the background to the Bill. We have had a picture of the Minister as a wise pilot with his hand firmly on the tiller going through the storms and stresses of revaluation, surefooted, knowing exactly where he was going, guiding the local authority ship in the direction of the haven, knowing all the time that the right moment, carefully calculated, he would produce this

great scheme of rate relief, knowing in 1961, when he was in the Standing Committee, that eventually it would have to be done.
But my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) has told us that, in fact, in Committee it was pointed out to the Government again and again that some action such as this would have to be taken. Our attitude has always been that the problems of local government finance are so difficult and complicated that they call for a thorough examination.
What has been said in the debate today about the need for a comprehensive inquiry? The Parliamentary Secretary said, "There is no easy way to find an alternative". The hon. Member for Chester said, "A general review would be an inquiry of an immense nature". The hon. Member for Ilford, South said, "We are just papering over the cracks of a decaying rating system. There is a need for a Royal Commission". The hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) said, "Enough, enough. The time has come to look at every form of revenue raising which is available—a full inquiry. I really mean a full inquiry."
What has the right hon. Gentleman been doing about this full inquiry? On 29th July the Standing Joint Committee of Metropolitan Boroughs, representing all London local authorities, sent this resolution to the Minister:
That in view of the increasing amount required each year to meet necessary local government expenditure, and the amount which has to be raised under the present rating system, which has no regard to the income of the individual ratepayer, a Committee of Inquiry should be appointed to examine the rating system and the possibilities of alternative sources of revenue.
This resolution contained the main points which have been made in the debate—hardship for the individual ratepayer, the need for examination of the rating system, and the possibilities of alternative sources of revenue.
On 15th August the Minister replied in these words:
The (Joint) Committee are doubtless aware that there have been several enquiries…Some were held a considerable time ago but the passing of the years does not invalidate the general conclusion that there was no satisfactory and workable alternative system…


Despite the annual increase in the amount of local government expenditure…there is no evidence that rates are a problem for the majority of ratepayers…However, there is no denying that a certain amount of hardship exists. The problem is first to see just where there is hardship and how it may be defined and this is why the Minister has set up the Allen Committee. When their report it received the Government will be able to decide whether any action is necessary.
That was in August. The attitude was that there was to be no individual rating relief until after the Allen Committee had reported. There is an out-and-out rejection as completely unnecessary of the idea of a full-blooded comprehensive inquiry into local taxation. What happened between 15th August and the Conservative Party's pledge reversing this?

Sir K. Joseph: What happened was that Professor Allen told me that with the best will in the world he could not produce his report until well into 1964. That was the new development.

Mr. MacColl: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman, for the price of a telephone call, find out before he wrote this rather peremptory and almost offensive letter that that was to happen?

Sir K. Joseph: Because at that time the Allen Committee was not sufficiently in action to give me its opinion on the timing.

Mr. MacColl: This is one of those improbable coincidences, like the fact that all the people in Folkestone and Hythe are over 65 and vote Tory.
It is a little hard to believe that in August he could not be told that a committee which was set up in May would not be able to report by the summer at the earliest, which was what the right hon. Gentleman said in his speech. Anyone who considered the matter would know that this was to be a comprehensive and careful statistical examination based on proper sampling methods.
We should pay tribute to Professor Allen for not being bounced by the Tory Party. What we desperately need and what we should have had years ago is a proper report on the incidence of rating, about which we know very little. It is to Professor Allen's credit that, when he was pressed to produce something quickly for this Session so

that it could be done before the General Election, he said, "No. My integrity as a scientist and statistician would prevent me doing that." That is what I think first happened.
The second thing that I think happened was that the Chief Secretary, who has been around a long time in the political field, said, "This is absolute nonsense." The attitude which the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was maintaining to local authorities as late as August could not be justified at the Conservative Party conference in October. Therefore, the Ministry completely reversed its policy which had been guiding it since 1961, under the Home Secretary and then under the present Minister. This policy was reversed overnight in October, at Blackpool. We are now reaping the effects of that.
Whatever may be the advantages or disadvantages of the Bill, however much we may improve it in Committee, however much it may be anomalous in its working, this way of dealing with local authority finance, hardship to ratepayers, and the interests of local communities—to treat them as pawn of party manipulation—is a shocking abrogation of the decencies of government.

9.28 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): We have had an entertaining if somewhat speculative speech from the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) about what has been going on in areas in which he can have no first-hand knowledge. I shall try to develop my speech on lines nearer to the facts, although I cannot hope to be as entertaining as a result.
Before attempting to answer the debate in general, I want to clear up one or two points raised by the hon. Gentleman. There were formal and confidential consultations with the local authority associations, and the Government's original proposals were modified to meet most of their suggestions. One of the modifications which was put forward for that purpose related to Clause 1, because one of the original proposals was to put in additional money for the elderly through the medium of the


General Grant. But this was changed to the form in which it appears in Clause 1 as a result of those discussions and the views expressed by the local authority associations.
As to the other main point with which the hon. Member dealt, namely why one selected 50 per cent. plus one-sixth of anything over 3 per cent. of the gross rate income, arithmetically that means that we move from 50 per cent. to two-thirds. I must admit that I did a little algebra during the night and did not get that answer until the penny dropped later on. But that is, in fact, what it means. The Government realise that there will be certain areas where this hardship element may be concentrated and, therefore, it is sensible to put rather more money into those areas.
In the debate we have ranged over a fairly wide field. There have been a number of remarks on the rating system as a whole. There have been a number of comments and, indeed, claims as to when a review of the relationship between central and local government finance should or should not have been carried out. We have had some comments on revaluation, and some misunderstanding. Indeed, by the time that we have added in the two articles from The Times, we have had almost more discussion on those outside factors than on the details of the Bill.
I will now say a few words on the remarks that have been made about the rating system. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) referred to one of its advantages, namely that it was hallowed by age. When I started taking an interest in these affairs my attitude was, "Well, if it has lasted all this long, it is time it was changed". But I am bound to admit that the more I go into these matters the harder I find it to think of something sensible to put in the place of the present system.
I think most of us can go back over our speeches in the past and find comments of perhaps a destructive nature on the rating system, but I am certainly not going to bore the House, let alone myself, by doing that in the case of my own speeches. However, I would not agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) that one becomes progressive by knocking down

an Aunt Sally without putting something in its place.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) was rather more moderate in his references to the rating system as such than some of his hon. Friends or, for that matter, of some of my hon. Friends. As is indicated in an article which was much quoted from the Observer, but which was not in other respects particularly laudatory, I think he realises that the rating system as it exists today is a definition of local government as it exists today. An answer of mine to a Question has been quoted, and I would be the most pleased person in the House if I were proved to be wrong. But I think HON. MEMBERS would agree that, on the whole, politicians are not backward in trying to find something which will make them popular, and I would be immensely happy if I could find a really satisfactory alternative to the rating system. All I am doing is to warn the House that there have been many inquiries and suggestions, and none of them have really held up when examined carefully.
I think it is unwise to imagine that one can suddenly find a panacea, after so many people have looked into the question. I am a little critical of the idea, which seems to gain strength in the modern world, that if we put a lot of men into a room, label them as experts and preferably put some letters after their names, they can find an answer to everything in due course. I do not think this happens, and it is unwise to think that one can suddenly produce an answer.
The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) said that one wanted courage to scrap the rating system. As at present advised, and with my present knowledge of the alternatives, I think it would be the courage born of desperation. However, I believe that the rating system is likely to remain—not necessarily without some other supplementary source of income—the basis of the financial independence of local authorities and their responsibility to their electorates which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West stressed as so important.
Then we passed on to a good deal of teasing by Hon. Members opposite. There


have been demands in the past for a review of the relationship between the central government contribution and the local government contribution. But I remind HON. MEMBERS opposite that when they were urging a general review in 1961 that was during the life of the 1956 valuation lists, and there had been a review as late as 1957. I must emphasise that, if the new look is to be any advance on the reviews which have been made in the past, it must include accurate information as to the real effects of revaluation.
The hon. Member for Fulham repeatedly referred to the necessity of looking at the combined effects of the rise in costs of local authority services and the effects of revaluation. One has only to go to the Vote Office and to get the two White Papers—the one which put forward the estimated effects of revaluation and the later one which put forward the actual effects—and compare the figures to realise how futile it would have been to have started a major review on the basis of the estimates, because they confirmed that, with the best will in the world and a great deal of skill, it is impossible to forecast accurately how revaluation will work out.

Mr. J. T. Price: May I remind the hon. Member, with great respect, that the official estimates published in the White Paper were very wide of the mark, whereas the unofficial estimates made by my hon. Friend during the Committee stage of the Measure in question were very much nearer the mark? That underlines the hon. Member's own argument about the reliability of expert opinion.

Mr. Corfield: I read quite recently the debate on the 1961 Measure, and there is no detailed estimate, as there could not be, on which one could conceivably found a useful general review. I remind the House—this was probably a slip rather than ignorance—that the 1961 Act was not responsible for revaluation. Revaluation arose from the Local Government Act, 1948, which, admittedly, was subsequently amended in order to postpone the revaluation for technical reasons rather than anything else. The 1961 Act eased the burden on householders, because it rerated industry.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) blamed the

Government for the 1953 Act decision to retain values of domestic property at 1939 values. In other words, he was criticising us for the amendment to the Local Government Act, 1948. But he overlooked the fact that the 1953 Act replaced provisions in the 1948 Act, for which, after all, the hon. Member's party was responsible—this is not important; it is a technical rather than a political matter—because the valuation officers had found that they produced totally unacceptable results and did not form a sensible basis for valuation. We went back then to 1939 values—there was a move forward from 1934, but it was a very small move—purely because that was the latest year in which there was a reasonably free market on which to judge rental values, which are the basis of rateable values. As a result, the 1953 Act gave householders seven years during which they have borne less rates than they would otherwise have done.
I suggest, therefore, that it is wrong to suppose that it could have made any sense in 1953 to have moved forward, albeit it would have been a shorter move, so to speak. Nevertheless, having reached that state of affairs, I cannot conceive that anybody, either in this House or outside, honestly believes that it makes sense to go on valuing property of any sort on the basis of 1939 values. That is nearly a quarter of a century ago. I imagine that a large proportion of the valuation staff were, at least, quite small boys at that time and for all I know, some of them may not have been born. To imagine that it is possible to relate the values of houses, something like one-quarter of which have been built since that date, to conditions which ruled, or might have ruled, in 1939 makes nonsense of a science which, at best, can hardly be an exact one. I hope, therefore, that we would all agree that the revaluation had to take place if we are to make any sense of the basis of the rating system.
The object of revaluation, or any form of valuation, is purely and simply to find the method by which to decide the shares of the rates. It would not very much matter if they were all 10 per cent. up, or double, or treble or one-half, as long as the relationship one to another is as fair as one can make it. That is what matters. As long as a certain


amount of property is based on 1939 values and another large proportion is based upon 1956, as was the case with commercial property and partial derating of industry, it is impossible to get any comparison which begins to make sense for the purpose of apportioning the rate burden.
To turn to the Bill, the first comment on Clause 1 came from the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) when he asked why the Clause referred to people over 65 instead of 65 and over. I assure the hon. Member that the description
over the age of sixty-five
is that used by the Registrar-General to include all people who have reached the age of 65 on the relevant date. The regulations under Clause 7 will provide for the number of people over the age of 65 to be estimated and certified by the Registrar-General for the purposes of this grant when the time comes. I assure the hon. Member that it will not make the difference that he suspected. I will, however, look up the other Acts to which he referred and see whether I can find the reason for the difference in wording.
A number of Hon. Members asked what was the relationship between the grants under Clause 1 and the expenditure under Clause 2, and, in turn, the grants towards that expenditure under Clause 5. There is no direct relationship between Clauses 1 and 2, but an estimate has been made—and one can do this only from a very large number of letters which have come in from all parts of the House and from all parts of the country, not necessarily through HON. MEMBERS. Although one cannot necessarily define hardship with accuracy, we all know it when we see it, and it appears that the concentration of this sort of thing is in the areas which, for want of a better word, one could call the retirement areas.
I have no doubt that to a large extent this is due to the fact that these areas coincide with absence of industry, or the presence of very little industry. To some extent that is part, perhaps, of the attraction of places to people who want to retire there. Again, of course, the fact that there is a large proportion of old people goes with the fact that there is a large proportion of people living on fixed

incomes with very little opportunity of increasing them. That is the reason why in Clause 1 the basis is the proportion of elderly people over 65 over a certain figure. I should perhaps tell the House that the figure chosen of 10 per cent., or 100 per thousand, is quite noticeably below the national average. The national average, on the 1961 census figures, is 119 per thousand;11·9 per cent. That is why it brings in a very large proportion of the total number of local rating authorities in the country.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and, I think, the hon. Member for Oldham, East, suggested that we should leave out Clause 2 (1,a), namely, the requirement that the increase in rates should be more than the difference between 1962–63 and 1964–65, plus 25 per cent. or £5 whichever is the greater. I think that this sum, which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West referred to as complicated, is not really as complicated as it appears, and it really does not follow, as I think the hon. Member for Oldham, East suggested, that it is the criterion for judging hardship. It is the prerequisite. We have to explain to people that they have to get over this hurdle first.
Here I think there is a difference of opinion in the House, but not on party lines necessarily. There are Hon. Members who have suggested that we should make this relief mandatory, that we should have what The Times called a scaling up, say, one-fifth of the increase in the first year and two-fifths in the second, spreading the increase over a five-year transitional period. But this is really to ignore the fact, which many hon. Gentlemen have drawn attention to, that many of these people can well afford to pay the extra. It simply does not follow, because one has suffered a big increase, which may in some cases reflect the fact that for years one has been paying below one's fair share of the rates, that one necessarily suffers hardship or that one is a proper recipient of special funds which are being made available in this Bill to meet hardship.
This was the point which The Times put forward as its suggestion, and I was glad that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham indicated, I think, almost


as much dislike of it as I have. Indeed, I feel that it was a curiously illogical suggestion to be put forward by The Times, because earlier in the same article it had condemned any proposition that some of this money might go to millionaires. To go on to suggest a means by which this not only might, but almost certainly would, happen seems illogical. I am afraid that the only conclusion I drew from the article was the dawning light why writers of leading articles prefer to remain anonymous. It did not seem to me very logical.
Nor did it seem to me an entirely logical idea that this is a vote catcher, because it went on to say that it might well cause more discontent than it cures. Whatever else the British public are they are much too sophisticated to give their votes to that sort of legislation, and I really think that The Times, and some HON. MEMBERS who include it in their reading, must make up their minds whether this is a good Bill or a vote catcher, because I do not believe it is both.
The hon. Member for Oldham, East said that this will involve some test of means. This is true, of course. It is true of every rebate scheme run by local authorities. It is an absolutely inevitable consequence of any effort to channel money to where there is hardship, whether on the lower scales of the National Assistance Board levels or scales slightly above those, with which we are mainly concerned in the Bill. In fact, we are exclusively concerned with them, because, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the National Assistance Board scales include an amount for rates, and normally everybody on National Assistance has any increase in rates met. I find that 98 per cent. of people in receipt of National Assistance who are also householders have the whole of their rates and any increases in rates met through National Assistance. So, at that level, hardship is not a problem. I can assure Hon. Members that there will be no duplication, that people who are on National Assistance will not be able to get relief under this Bill as well.
There will be a very considerable extra administrative burden on local authorities. No one denies that. No one can assess how that burden will fall from one area to another at present. In some

areas it will be relatively light; in some other areas it will be relatively heavy. Most local authorities have some experience of running rebate schemes, and when they apply the same sort of principles, I think it would be possible in many cases for them to give broad indications of the sort of people who need not take up time by applying and, possibly, broad indications of those who are likely to be favourably received. I also hope that they will continue to operate the principle which they do under rebate schemes of discussing people's affairs under a code number in the committee so that there is no question of having those affairs discussed publicly.
Several Hon. Members raised the problem connected with the actual technical exercise by the valuation officers—the valuation of particular properties. My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet) was particularly concerned about the apparent anomaly between the valuation for flats on the one hand and houses on the other. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington raised the question of the Paignton mistake. Hon. Members will realise that I am not a valuer and that my Department is not responsible for the valuation officers, who are employed by the Inland Revenue, but I can safely say that when the mistake at Paignton came to light every effort was made to put it right at once and there was no question of trying to hush it up. Should another mistake come to light, the same will be done.
For the present, the only answer to those who think that they are over-rated is the local valuation court. These courts do excellent work. They are composed mainly of voluntary workers and I am sure that they are utterly impartial. I do not think that we have had any complaint to the contrary and that is probably as high a tribute as I can pay.
The whole question of the method of valuation will be included in the review. It is intended that the review shall be thorough-going and all points of this kind will be looked into. The main problem is that differences of this sort reflect the differences in rental values, which provide the whole basis of the scheme. There are bound to be different


relationships between different types of property in different parts of the country.
The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North referred, as did other Hon. Members, to the additional amount of administrative work and expense that Clause 2 will create. Here again, on the whole, the local authority associations have faced this. I cannot say that they have accepted it with great enthusiasm, but they realise that it is a necessary exercise and a responsibility they can and should accept.
It was also a little curious to see The Times suggesting that there is something constitutionally wrong in putting in the same body the obligations to levy a tax and at the same time to relieve hardship. But both these are functions of Government, and if they are functions of national Government, then they are also within the functions of local government. We tend to forget that local authorities are, to a large extent, independent within their own responsibilities. The Bill recognises this fact and ensures a degree of financial independence without which, I

believe, they might not have the opportunity to carry out the immense tasks now falling upon them and which will become immensely greater with urban renewal and the problems of the motor car.
This Bill does not go to the root of the rating system and does not pretend to do so. It is an interim Measure and is not meant in any way to be a panacea for all the anomalies of the rating system. It is intended to bring relief to individuals hard hit by revaluation. That is why the figure of 25 per cent. has been chosen as something more than the increase which occurs in two years of ordinary rate call increase. This increase has, over the last two years, actually been about 20 per cent. although that has been higher than usual. The Bill strikes the right balance in dealing with largely localised problems for an interim period, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — RATING (INTERIM RELIEF) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to England and Wales for grants to rating authorities, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament—
(a) of any expenses of the Minister of Housing and Local Government incurred—
(i) in making to rating authorities in the case of whom, in the year 1964–65 or any subssquent year, the number of persons over the age of sixty-five estimated to be included in the population of the authority's area exceeds one-tenth of the estimated total of that population a grant in respect of that year at a rate of five pounds per head of the excess;
(ii) in making to rating authorities who have afforded relief for any year in accordance with the said Act to the residential occupiers of dwellings a grant equal to half the aggregate amount of that relief plus one-sixth of the amount, if any, by which that aggregate amount exceeds three per cent. of the gross rate income of the authority's area for that year within the meaning of the Rate-product Rules 1959 or the Rate-product (County Boroughs) Rules 1959;
(b) of any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other Act.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

9.59 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: There are one or two questions that we should ask about this Money Resolution before we give it our approval. The Money Resolution authorises
payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—
of any expenses of the Minister of Housing and Local Goverment incurred—
in making to rating authorities in the case of whom, in the year 1964–65 or any subsequent year, the number of persons over the age of sixty-five estimated to be included in the population of the authority's area exceeds one-tenth of the estimated total of that population a grant in respect of that year at a rate of five pounds per head of the excess;
During the debate on the Bill, it was suggested that it might be useful to

amend that figure, but as I read the Money Resolution it will not be possible to do so. This is something which Hon. Members should consider before passing the Resolution. Hon. Members ought not to have their hands tied and be prevented from discussing whether the fraction of one-tenth is correct. The Resolution seems to be very tightly drawn in that respect.
In sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) we have a curious formula for estimating the Government's contribution to the amount to be spent by local authorities in giving relief. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that.
Sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) is the provision by which during next year and the year after, 1964–65 and 1965–66, £13 million is to be given to the ratepayers of England and Wales. I have to hesitate about supporting this Resolution when I remember that in Scotland we are to get only £1 million, and that in the year 1965–66. The sum of £13 million is to be spent in England and Wales to relieve hardship and I am reminded of the relatively small amount to be spent in Scotland.

The Chairman: The hon. Member will find himself going outside the Resolution if he deals with Scotland, because we are dealing only with England and Wales.

Mr. Willis: I am very grateful for your guidance, Sir William. I was only quoting that as one of my reasons for finding it difficult to support the Resolution. I do not intend to develop any great argument about Scotland, but for Scottish Members this is one of the factors which must be borne in mind when we are asked to support a Resolution of this character.
Sub-paragraph (ii) is the provision by which authorisation is given for an amount which is not known, but which is to be over and above the £13 million which is to be spent during the first two years, so that the sum for England and Wales is to be more than £13 million compared with only £1 million for Scotland.
Paragraph (b) covers
any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other Act.


The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says:
Changes in penny rate products as a result of the Bill may increase the amounts of rate deficiency grant (and consequently Exchequer equalisation grant in Scotland) through their indirect effect on the distribution of general grant and on the incidence of precepts for purposes other than general county purposes.
I assume that the extent to which that will affect the Scottish Exchequer equalisation grant is covered by sub-paragraph (b) of the Money Resolution. How much is it expected that the Exchequer equalisation grant for Scotland will rise as a result of the operation of the Bill? That is one of the factors which we must consider when deciding whether to approve this Money Resolution, because it must be remembered that Scotland receives only £1 million.
The Memorandum also says:
The changes may also affect subsidies under the Housing Acts of 1919 and1961.…
I do not know the extent to which that affects Scotland, because 1961 Act does not apply to Scotland.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that the Housing Bill, which is being considered in Committee upstairs, proposes to apply Part II of the 1961 Act to Scotland.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend, with his customary perspicacity has appreciated the point that I was about to make. When the 1961 Act becomes applicable to Scotland as a result of that terrible hotchpotch of a Bill that we are considering in Committee, to what extent will it affect Scotland financially?
I hope that I have not transgressed the rules of order too much, if at all. I do not like this Money Resolution, for two reasons: first, because it is so tightly drawn, it precludes a great deal of useful discussion; and secondly, because I am not in favour of voting these large sums of money for England and Wales in view of the small amount that we are to receive in Scotland. This is a monstrous state of affairs, and I think that the Scottish Ministers, who are skulking at the end of the Front Bench opposite, ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for not being able to do better than this for Scotland. They ought to resign.

Mr. William Ross: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has done a service to the Committee in raising these points. We ought to scrutinise the Money Resolution as carefully as possible to ensure that it is discussed in detail and to enable us to make desirable changes when the Bill goes to Committee.
As a Scot, I deplore the fact that I am to be denied the opportunity of making vital changes in respect of Scotland. The Money Resolution says:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to England and Wales for grants to rating authorities…
That means that neither in Committee nor on Report will I be able to move an Amendment suggesting that the words "to Scotland" in Clause 10, page 7, line 24, be left out. In that line it is provided that the Bill shall not extend to Scotland or to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland people can look after themselves, but I am concerned with Scotland.
We have a right to suggest that this is unfair to Scotland. On the day the Bill was issued we had an answer from the Secretary of State for Scotland which related to it, and in which he said that he was going to take parallel measures. I should have thought that the best way to take parallel measures would be to ensure that similar legislation to this was brought in separately for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman is not going to do this, but owing to the way in which the Money Resolution is drawn back benchers will be denied the chance of doing anything about it themselves. I do not know whether the Treasury Ministers are responsible, but I should like to know whether this action was calculated to stifle the justified complaints of Scottish Members.
My second point is on similar lines to one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, but I want to link it up with a paradox which he omitted. Not only is the Money Resolution tightly drawn; it is also very loosely drawn. Sub-paragraph (a,i) could not be tighter, but sub-paragraph (a,ii) could not be looser. There is little hope of my hon. Friends who represent English and Welsh constituencies being able to provide for an increase in the grants paid


for elderly persons; the wording is so completely tied up. The age is there—65—and the figure of one-tenth of the estimated total population of the area is laid down, as is the rate, of £5 per head. Not a thing can be changed in Committee if we pass this Money Resolution. It deprives us of any discretion.
Mention of the word "discretion" immediately brings me to sub-paragraph (a,ii). I thought that we were coming to the end of open-ended subsidies and grants. The Minister has not been able to tell us his estimate of what this sub-paragraph will cost, and I am entitled to ask the Treasury what it thinks will be the cost. We are dealing with money, and I am entitled to ask how much is involved. Surely there were discussions between the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Treasury on this matter before the authorisation of the payment out of these moneys.
The sub-paragraph says that the amount that will be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament
in making to rating authorities who have afforded relief for any year in accordance with the said Act to the residential occupiers of dwellings a grant equal to half the aggregate amount of that relief…
We have not a clue what the amount of relief will be. It is entirely at the discretion of local authorities. What will the Public Accounts Committee say about us if we pass this Resolution so blindly? I can remember that Committee becoming all worked up and the Government deducting nearly £1 million from Scottish local authorities' grants in respect of what it thought were too low rents.
10.15 p.m.
Here we are giving open-ended discretion to local authorities in England and Wales. So far as I know, no sum has been quoted as to what it will cost. We in Scotland are taxpayers, too. But the Ministers who clamped down on Scotland last year—with a subservient Secretary of State for Scotland doing their bidding—are the people who are presenting this to the Committee tonight—the Treasury. I should like to know what this will cost, and I want an answer. There is a wonderful Clause in the Bill giving the Minister power by Order, not an affirmative Motion but only an annulment, to give an estimate of what it will cost and to come back with a

corrected estimate. For the proper processes of Parliament, and in order to know what we are passing, this is the time for an estimate to be given. Surely when they went to the Treasury the Ministers had some idea of what it would cost. We have had an estimate, a rough one, in respect of sub-paragraph (a,i) of £6,500,000 in the next year.

Mr. Willis: I am sure that my hon. Friend has noted that this amount could be well over 3 per cent. of the gross rate income which, according to my calculation, might be £25 million in the case of England and Wales.

Mr. Ross: This is additional. It is one-half of what is discretionary, plus one-sixth. The total may be very high; but there is no point in Hon. Members on this side of the Committee making blind guesses when we have present an array of Treasury Ministers who can tell us what is involved.
I wish to draw attention to subparagraph (b) of the Money Resolution, authorising the payment out of money provided by Parliament:
of any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other Act.
Nothing could be very much wider than that. I wish to know something about the £1 million which has been promised to Scotland for the relief of hardship. We have had revaluation on current values since 1961 and so we are getting speedy and urgent relief—there is a promise from the Secretary of State that he is going to add £1 million, not this year, not next year, but in 1965, to the general grant. But we do not know what the general grant is, and so we shall not know whether £1 million has been added and £1 million taken away to make room for it. I wish to know whether the £1 million is attributable to this Act. On 9th December, the Secretary of State said:
Meanwhile, in parallel with interim measures for Exchequer assistance which are being introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in the Rating (Interim Relief) Bill published today, I propose to provide temporary assistance to Scottish local authorities."—[Official Report, 9th December, 1963; Vol. 686, c. 37.]
Temporary assistance in 1965 for hardship that started in 1961—well done, thou good and faithful Tory! And someone said that it has no relation to a General


Election. May we be told whether this £1 million is covered by this Bill? May I query the use of the word "provide"? I have studied Money Resolutions over a number of years and I should have thought that the proper word would be "payable". I wish to know exactly why it is so indefinite. There is another Money Resolution on the Order Paper where this formula is much more definite.
It says:
any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in Scotland.
It would have been far better if the Minister of Housing and Local Government had spelled out the main Acts from which he expected to have to pay out more moneys. We have had reference to the increased administrative expenses of local authorities. They are to be attributable to this Act. He might have given us information about that.
There are to be increases in relation to rate deficiency payments in England and Wales. There are to be increases, I fancy, in relation to general grant in England and Wales. I hesitated to question your Ruling, Sir William, that this did not refer to Scotland, but we cannot make any increase in rate deficiency grant in England and Wales without also increasing the rate deficiency grant in Scotland. We find in all these Bills that whether Scotland is in the Bill or not it is always in the Money Resolution. It so happens that it is not mentioned in this Resolution tonight because of the way in which the Money Resolution has been drawn.
I ask, what are the Acts; what are the sums? There is also a question of the Housing Acts of 1919 to 1961 being affected by a change in the penny rate. This may well have a future reference to Scotland, but, if one of the rules of order is that we cannot discuss what is going on in Committee, I shall not go into that point. I shall be grateful if we can have these points examined and answered. Was it deliberate to leave out Scotland in respect of rating authorities? If England and Wales had not been mentioned, could Scotland have been introduced later? Was it deliberate so to specify in sub-paragraph (a,i) the age, the fraction and the

actual amount per head to prevent any possibility of upward amendment in Committee? What is to be the cost under sub-paragraph (ii)? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what are the other Acts and whether they include the legendary promise of £1 million under the Scottish general grant in the year 1965–66?

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs(Sir Keith Joseph): May I first take the opportunity to apologise to the Committee for an unintentional misstatement I made when intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) on the Second Reading? I said categorically, getting my dates wrong, that I learned from Professor Allen after an early date in August that the Report of his Committee would not be available this year. I have checked on the dates and in fact I did know in the second half of July from Professor Allen that the Report would not be available. I informed the House of this and that the Government, in the light of it, were considering whether any interim steps would be necessary before the next rates were paid. I apologise to the hon. Member for unintentionally misleading him, but the letter I sent to the Standing Joint Committee was written at a time when my statement of the Government's intention to consider an interim measure had been made public.

Mr. James MacColl: Of course I unreservedly accept the apology of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ross: This is out of order on a Money Resolution.

Mr. MacColl: I think it confirms my suggestion that at the time the letter was sent to the Standing Joint Committee it was known that there was no possibility of the Allen Committee's Report being received this Session.

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful for the opportunity, slightly out of order, to put right that mistake on my part.
I turn with some relief to the technicalities of the Money Resolution. First, I must accept that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) paradoxically is right in saying that part of the


Money Resolution is very tight and part is very loose. The Money Resolution in respect of Clauses 1 and 5 is very tightly drawn, and I understand that any Amendment to the figures in those Clauses would, subject to the Ruling of the Chair, be out of order. On the other hand, the figure in Clause 2 about the eligibility of a householder to be considered for hardship relief is not limited by the Money Resolution and therefore that part of the Bill is open to discussion with a view to amendment.
So much for the tightness of the Money Resolution. Unfortunately, in the nature of things I am not able to give a clear answer to the inquiries by HON. MEMBERS about the probable cost of Clause 5, which, in terms of the Money Resolution is paragraph (a,ii). The fact is that if we knew exactly how much hardship there was we should have been able to draw the Bill in quite a different way. But we do not know exactly how much hardship there is, and we are forced to rely on the local authorities' discretion.
As the hon. Member rightly said, the expenditure under Clause 5 will depend on the use which local authorities make of that discretion. All I can say is that from the best evidence I can get—and in the nature of the things I fear that it is scanty evidence—the order of magnitude of the cost of Clause 5 and therefore of paragraph (a,ii) will be something under the cost of Clause 1 or of paragraph (a,i)—something under £6 million. That is the nearest I can get to guiding the House. I cannot say that it is accurate even to within 50 per cent., but that is the order of magnitude which I think will obtain.
I was asked to give some information about paragraph (b). Here the words are fairly broadly drawn in reference to
sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other Act.
This is both because they include by that phrase reference to the well-known link between the rate-deficiency grant in England and Wales and the Exchequer Equalisation Grant in Scotland and because there are two other Acts which are known to be influenced by the 1d. rate product in England and Wales. The 1d. rate product in England and Wales may be minutely altered by

the operation of the Bill. It may be that because the distribution through the precept of some expenses falls differently as a result of differences in rate remissions of county districts, the total of rate deficiency grants might be minutely increased. This would occur if a larger share of expenses were borne by county districts receiving rate deficiency grant at higher percentages.
Because of the Bill we must bear in mind the possibility that a 1d. rate product, which is a factor in two other Acts—the Housing Act, 1919 and the Housing Act, 1961—might be slightly altered. These possibilities are covered in paragraph (b).
The hon Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), in a brilliantly imaginative intervention said, "But the current Housing Bill before the House introduces Part II of the Housing Act, 1961 to Scotland and there is, therefore, implicit reference to Scotland in paragraph (b)". I must correct him. He was very nearly right. But what the current Housing Bill which is in Committee upstairs does is to make it possible for Part II of the Housing Act, 1961 to be introduced into Scotland at a later stage.
The last question raised concerned the Secretary of State's announcement. Although the Secretary of State for Scotland has announced his intentions in connection with a £1 million for Scotland, that does not come within the ambit of this Bill, which is limited to England and Wales. I think that I have answered all the questions which were put to me, and I hope that I have satisfied Hon. Members.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. As the debate proceeds, it becomes clear that under paragraph (a,ii) the amount that can be spent is very substantial. I cannot see any limit to the amount which can be spent. A local authority can spend any amount it likes. It will be guaranteed half by the Government, plus one-sixth of the amount by which whatever it spends exceeds 3 per cent. of the gross rate income.

Sir K. Joseph: I should like to put the hon. Gentleman right straight away. Local authorities are free to remit only in cases of hardship and subject to the


two hurdles—that is, the 25 per cent. increase over the 1962–63 level or at least a £5 increase. Hardship must be established. Then the remission must not exceed the excess over the 1962–63 level, plus 25 per cent. There are these limits.

Mr. Willis: I accept the correction that there are limits. One is the £5. Speeches I have heard about conditions in England had led me to believe that everyone has suffered a far bigger increase than this. Most people in Scotland have, but we have not the benefits of this. One reason which makes me dubious about supporting the Money Resolution is that, as I understand it, when a Scottish local authority remits rates it does not get a contribution towards it. This is utterly preposterous.
Why the Secretary of State for Scotland sits there and allows this to go through without saying a word about it is beyond my comprehension. Has he no consideration at all for Scottish ratepayers? He allows ratepayers South of the Border to obtain benefits of this kind which do not operate in Scotland and which are likely to involve considerable expenditure, expenditure which might well make his £1 million look like chicken feed. I feel angry about this. If it were advisable I should like to vote against the Resolution, but I do not want to deny my fellow Englishmen the benefits they might get under the Bill. I should like to see steps being taken by Scottish Ministers to ensure that some of these benefits are brought North of the Border.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: Scottish Members are bound in doing their duty to try to probe the rating reliefs which will affect in some way allocations of general grant and Exchequer equalisation grant in Scotland. As my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) pointed out so ably, paragraph (a,ii) is drawn very wide. It says:
in making to rating authorities who have afforded relief for any year in accordance with the said Act to the residential occupiers of dwellings a grant equal to half the aggregate amount of that relief plus one-sixth of the amount, if any, by which that aggregate amount exceeds three per cent.

The Minister tried to ride this off by saying that he cannot give us a figure, because it depends on the amount of hardship. We cannot accept that. The yardstick of hardship among the English and Welsh local authorities could have very little to do with the actual on-cost and moneys paid out.
The degree of hardship is to be assessed by the English and Welsh local authorities. But the compositions of local authorities are different. Some local authorities may be hard-hearted in their outlook and may not have the regard for extenuating circumstances in the case of old-age pensioners that other local authorities have. The Minister has an intimate knowledge of local authorities, and thousands of representations have flowed in to his office from local authorities in England and Wales about the hardship which will be inflicted by these rate increases. Surely he must have some idea of the amount of money involved. If I were to mention a sum of £14 million, could he not say that that would be something near it? He cannot say that is not a reasonable sort of figure. The Minister has already told us that he does not know the degree of hardship involved, so he is in a cleft stick. He cannot answer. Our case is as good as his.

Sir K. Joseph: If the hon. Member is asking whether I can confirm that Clause 5 of the Bill—that is, paragraph (a, ii) of the Money Resolution—might cost £14 million, I can say categorically that the answer is "no".

Mr. Manuel: This is a remarkable situation. I took down the Minister's words very carefully. He said he could not say how much hardship there is; it could not be measured. Would he agree that it is the measuring of this hardship by the local authorities which will decide the figure, or have I misconstrued the situation? I think the amount could be much more. I think I am making a conservative estimate in suggesting this figure.
We are in a cleft stick. We have a feeling that something wrong is being perpetrated in Scotland and that it can cause great injury to local authorities and the work that they carry out because of the application of the general grant.

Mr. Willis: If we take the first two years, which brings us up to the time that Scotland gets the £1 million, it is quite possible under these two provisions that England and Wales would get £20 million.

Mr. Manuel: My hon. Friend is so accurate in his assessment of the position that I am bound to agree with him. I think that figure is very moderate. It could be £28 million, and we do not get our grant in Scotland for two years yet. I know it is fashionable these days to lump all sorts of things into United Kingdom Bills. The English Minister is having quite a job with the Housing Bill, because he does not know much about Scotland.

Mr. Ross: He does not know much about England.

Mr. Manuel: I would not say that. We are not talking about geography here. The Minister has admitted in Committee that he is not competent to deal with the Scottish application of the United Kingdom Bill, but I think my hon. Friends will agree that we would welcome some more references to Scotland than we have had. Why, when there is something of real value, is it applicable to England and Wales only?
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill lays down quite clearly that
Changes in penny rate products as a result of the Bill may increase the amounts of rate-deficiency grant (and consequentially Exchequer equalisation grant in Scotland) through their indirect effect on the distribution of general grant and on the incidence of precepts for purposes other than general county purposes.
This is very confused, of course, but the Government actually have an alibi. Two years from now they can tell us that they indicated in the Memorandum that there could be repercussions in Scotland.
All we are trying to do tonight is to try to wring some information out of Ministers responsible as to what the repercussions are likely to be in Scotland when this comes fully into effect. So far we have been signally ineffective in getting any real information. I would hope that the Minister will tell us, or the Secretary of State for Scotland will tell us, and perhaps relieve our anxieties, that he will make up this leeway if we

have lost it in two years' time, when this is applied in Scotland. If the Secretary of State would make that statement we should all be happy to let the Money Resolution pass.

Mr. George Lawson: I think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think we are just having a little joke. We are very much concerned. We represent Scotland. We wish to see Scottish interests upheld. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think that this is a matter merely of passing some time, they ought to get rid of the idea. The Patronage Secretary is sitting there. The Secretary of State for Scotland is sitting there looking at the ceiling. He started knowing nothing about if. He is asleep, or at least showing no interest whatever n what is going on—

Mr. Willis: It is beyond his comprehension.

Mr. Lawson: —although he is the Minister with the primary responsibility for Scottish interests. My hon. Friends have asked legitimate questions. If they had not asked legitimate questions, you, Sir William, would have ruled them out of order. They have asked those questions and they are entitled to get answers.
It is quite obvious that the Minister of Housing and Local Government cannot answer those questions. It is possible, though I doubt it, that the Secretary of State for Scotland may be able to answer them. He might at least have a try. Since the Patronage Secretary is sitting there, in control and command of these things—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—he might suggest to his right hon. Friend that at least he gets up and has a try. I have not interrupted at all, but have listened to the right hon. Gentleman hazarding a guess what the cost might be under paragraph (a,ii). If I did not misunderstand him, it was very much a guess—very much a guess. How can he get up and say categorically it cannot be £14 million? When the right hon. Gentleman hazards a guess how can be mock other guesses? One guess is as good as another—unless the right hon. Gentleman can bring forward some evidence to show that his guess is an informed guess. I have not yet heard that evidence. He is telling us that in


that guess he may be 50 per cent. out. That is something. We should like to learn how he arrives at the 50 per cent. We want to know how Scotland will be affected by the Measure and the related Measure. We want to know the implications and consequences.

It being a quarter to Eleven o'clock, The Chairman put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted Business).

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — DISTRICT PROBATE REGISTRIES ORDER

10.46 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): I beg to move,
That the District Probate Registries Order, 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.
The object of the Order is to enable the District Probate Registries at Exeter and Bodmin to be run by one registrar instead of, as at present, by two.
The reason for making the change is that there is not sufficient work at Bodmin to require the full-time attendance of a registrar, and the President of the Probate Division, with the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury, is satisfied that an equally efficient service to the public in Cornwall and Devon would be provided by the attendance of the registrar at Exeter on four days of the week and at Bodmin on one day.
The history of the matter is that until 1938 Bristol and Exeter together constituted one group with a sub-registry at Bodmin and that after 1938 until today separate probate registrars operated at Bristol and Exeter and Bodmin.
While it is true that the amount of business done in probate registries has been increasing steadily since 1938, the fact nevertheless remains that the amount of actual attendances either by members of the public or by solicitors and other members of the legal profession at any individual probate registry is very small indeed, and does not, in the view of those who know about these matters, justify the continuation of a full-time registrar at Bodmin.
In 1962 there were 3,742 applications at Bodmin, of which 3,481 were dealt with wholly by correspondence. There were only 183 personal applications by the general public, which do not, of course, require the attendance of the registrar in person, and there were only 78 applications made wholly or partly by the personal attendance of a solicitor—in other words, the equivalent of one and a half attendances a week. At Exeter there was a total of 5,647 grants issued in 1962, and of these only 383 were personal applications from the general public, and 1,022 were wholly or partly by the personal attendance of a solicitor. In these circumstances, it is considered that the public will continue to get as satisfactory a service if there is a single registrar for both Exeter and Bodmin and if he is in attendance at Exeter for four days a week and at Bodmin for one day a week.
It is proposed that the fusion of the two posts should take place on 30th July next when the present registrar at Exeter retires, and it is estimated that a total saving to public funds of approximately £1,500 a year will be achieved.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The odd thing about this Order is that it was not made before. Apparently, the present position is that the number of transactions at Bodmin is increasing. The Government in their wisdom choose the moment when the transactions are increasing to shut down the registry and get the work done by a registrar coming from outside Cornwall. I do not quite follow this. If it is right to close this registry now, then it was right to close it some considerable time ago. One wonders why it was not done then.
If it is to be done now, what assurance do the Government have that with the continued increase a separate registry at Bodmin might not soon be wanted again? I forbear from going too much into the figures, although I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find a remarkable disparity between the number of solicitors' cases in Exeter and that in Bodmin. It may depend on some personal and local circumstance with which I am not acquainted and with which he may not be acquainted, but on the main question that we have to consider I should like to know why


now and not before. Although the death of a district registry does not attract so much attention as that of Trelawney, some number of Cornishmen, probably not 20,000 but rather fewer, would like to know the reason why.

The Attorney-General: It is not the position that the probate registry at Bodmin is being closed. All that is happening is that it is being run as a sub-station from Exeter. It will still be in its present existing physical presence with its staff, but there will not be an individual commanding officer for each. All that is happening is that a single registrar is taking command of both registries instead of having two commanding officers at Bodmin and Exeter.

Mr. Mitchison: Surely that answer is rather by the card. The right hon and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well what I mean. In future, the business is to be dealt with not by someone who deals continuously with the Bodmin business, but by someone who comes from Exeter for one day in the week to deal with it. It does not matter whether we call that shutting down a registry or not. What is being done is perfectly clear and the Attorney-General understands it perfectly well. Presumably, it is being done for some reason of economy. I do not know of any other reason. If that is the case, why with business now increasing was this not done some time ago, and what security have we that the increase in the business will not lead the Government in a short time to do the very opposite of what they are now doing?

The Attorney-General: It is not the Government, but the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division who is responsible for the organisation. The Government put through the Orders if they approve them, but the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, on review, no doubt on assuming his office, has decided that this reform can be made. If it transpires—no doubt he will keep these matters under review—that further attendance is required, no doubt he will take appropriate steps. There are more attendances in Exeter than Bodmin—I know the area a little—because there are far more

solicitors in practice in Exeter. The majority of solicitors in Cornwall are not concentrated in Bodmin and they therefore do their probate business with the registry by correspondence.

Mr. Mitchison: When an Order requires the concurrence of two Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, it is remarkable to say that it depends entirely on the judge who makes it. Of course the Government are involved.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the District Probate Registries Order, 1963, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.

Orders of the Day — COUNTRYSIDE AND TOURIST AMENITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Noble.]

Question agreed to.

Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — COUNTRYSIDE AND TOURIST AMENITIES (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[SIR WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session relating to the countryside and tourist amenities in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by parliament of—
(a) grants towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred by any person in carrying out work which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is calculated to preserve or enhance the natural beauty of a country locality, to restore or improve the appearance of land in a country locality, or to improve the facilities available in such a locality to members of the public for enjoying the countryside;


(b) allowances to members of a Scottish Tourist Amenities Council established under that Act;
(c) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act; and
(d) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in Scotland.—[Mr. Noble.]

10.56 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I think that I am the only Scottish Member who has not made a speech on this Bill.

Mr. George Lawson: I have not made one.

Mr. Willis: I stand corrected. My hon. Friend and I are probably the only Scottish Members who have not made speeches on this Bill, and it would be out of order to do so now. I have no intention of detaining the Committee for very long, but I am sure that it would be a great disappointment to the array of Scottish Ministers on the Front Bench opposite if they were now allowed to show their paces on this Money Resolution, and we must therefore ask them one or two simple questions.
We have come down from the higher realms of local government finance, with all its intricate calculations, to the more mundane matters of tourism. Sub-paragraph (a) of the Money Resolution, which almost repeats Clause 2(1) of the Bill, authorises the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of
grants towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred by any person in carrying out work which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is calculated to preserve or enhance the natural beauty of a country locality, to restore or improve the appearance of land in a country locality, or to improve the facilities available in such a locality to members of the public for enjoying the countryside.
We grumbled about the Money Resolution in respect of the Rating (Interim Relief) Bill being drawn too tightly. We now have a Money Resolution drawn in extremely wide terms, and I should like to know what it embraces. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (The Earl of Dalkeith) decides to paint the gates of his country estate, will that be eligible for a grant? It appears that it will be. Or if my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), in very much

humbler circumstances, decides to paint the gate of his front garden, will that be eligible for a grant?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend knows that I do not live in a historic mansion maintained out of public funds. I live in an ordinary semi-detached cottage, and no funds are provided for its upkeep.

Mr. Willis: I was aware of the distinction, but the giving of a grant seems to depend on whether it is in a country locality
in a rural area whether in the landward part of a county or otherwise.
That seems to me to beg the question of what is a rural area. The provision lends itself to exploitation by the landowning interests of Scotland on a large scale. I am against allowing the landed gentry of Scotland to get their hands further into the public purse. They are in deep enough already, without allowing them to be in much deeper.
11.0 p.m.
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will be able to indicate the kind of things that can be done under the provision. I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee, but I could think of numerous kinds of activity which could be engaged in by various people and paid for under this provision. The Financial Memorandum says that it is expected to spend only £25,000, but I wonder on what that calculation was based. Who decided that it would be only £25,000? Was there a sample survey of the type of work required in Lanarkshire, or the Border area—perhaps in Roxburgh—which was taken as being indicative of what was required for the whole country? The right hon. Gentleman should tell us something about it.
He should also tell us something about the allowances to members of the Scottish Tourist Amenities Council, to be established under the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate what it might cost. I understand that these people will have fairly considerable powers of taxing. I feel rather dubious about passing on such powers to other people. What sort of allowances has the right hon. Gentleman in mind? How many are to be on this Council? I could ask what amounts are to be spent under paragraphs (c) and (d). Perhaps the right


hon. Gentleman could say something about them, and give us an estimate of the total expenditure per annum that he expects to be involved.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East Mr. Willis) is so good at dealing with these problems that I feel it is almost a compliment that on this occasion the Treasury has not been accused of drawing the Money Resolution too tightly. That is generally the argument he makes. I agree that paragraph (a) is very wide. It is right, in the circumstances that we know about in Scotland, that it should be wide, because there are so many different ways in which the amenities—to use the modern word—of our countryside can be improved. I do not think that many Secretaries of State would want to paint the hon. Member's gates, in any colour, but there might well be conditions in which individuals could contribute cheaply and sensibly to providing extra facilities, for our tourists.
The hon. Member said that he was one of the few people who had not spoken on the Bill. I am sure that he read about all those parts of the debate that he missed, and he will therefore be aware of the suggestions made as to the types of work which could be done under this provision. One hon. Member suggested that derelict buildings might be removed, or perhaps trees planted to screen them, in order that they should not affect the beauty of the countryside. It was also suggested that seats might be provided, and footpaths improved, and that indicator signs should be put up showing the direction of high peaks from certain vantage points. Other suggestions were made, going as far as the clearing of litter and the provision of car parks. All these things are possible under the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman asked why a figure of £25,000 had been suggested. It is not, of course, either in the Money Resolution or in the Bill, and all that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is what I said to Hon. Members in the Committee, that this figure was thought to be reasonable; and particularly it was thought to be so in relation to the fact that the English equivalent legislation contemplates an annual expenditure of £48,000. This figure, therefore, was

thought to be a reasonable indication of what might be needed in Scotland.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's question about allowances paid to members of the Scottish Tourist Amenities Council, these will be the normal allowances for travel and subsistence given to people who have to travel a certain amount round the country in order to see how the work or the suggestions made should best be dealt with. I do not expect these allowances to be substantial because I do not believe that this will need to be a very large body. Therefore, I do not think the hon. Gentleman need be worried about any large sums being spent in this way.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I wonder if the Secretary of State for Scotland would partially take back some of the things he has just said. The right hon. Gentleman justified paragraph (a) by saying that in the course of the discussion on the principle of the Bill Hon. Members made a lot of suggestions as to ways in which public money might be spent in improving the amenities of the countryside. He then went on to say, for example, that we might clear some of the derelict pit heaps. We are not going to clear many pit heaps if the right hon. Gentleman is going to spend only £25,000. In any case, the right hon. Gentleman must know full well that we should not deal with that kind of problem in Scotland, which is a very large problem, under the provisions of the Bill.
Power was given under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, in the areas scheduled under that Act. The powers were repeated in the 1960 Local Employment Act in the areas listed under that Act as development districts. The Government have the power to provide the whole of the money for the clearing of these derelict sites, whether pit heaps or other industrial sites which have become derelict, under the provisions of the 1960 Act. As far as I am aware, they have so far not cleared any.
It is a little unfortunate if the right hon. Gentleman is just going to throw out loosely a hope to unwary people in local authorities and to unwary people who might be thinking of visiting Scotland that they might get a job done for which provision is already specifically made by an Act, though not done


under that Statute but done, as it were, vicariously under the Countryside and Tourist Amenities (Scotland) Bill. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it will not be done and he really must not hold out any possibility of it being done in what he says tonight.

Mr. Noble: It was not I who threw out this suggestion but one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, who asked whether this sort of work could be done or whether screening by trees could be employed as well. I said that it could and quoted that example to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fraser: That was exactly my complaint. The right hon. Gentleman is Secretary of State. He is the person defending before the British House of Commons a Money Resolution which is being considered now by a Committee of the whole House. When asked by my hon. Friend what he expects to do with the powers he is seeking under paragraph (a), he replied by saying that some hon. Member had suggested things which could be done, and left it at that. He did not say, "We would not dream of spending money under this power in clearing a derelict slag heap at a colliery." He did not say that it would not be done, but that it was one of the things which could be done. I want him to take that back, because we all know that it will not be done and we ought not to hold out the prospect of its being done.
We very much hope that many derelict sites will be cleared under legislation which specifically refers to them as blots on the landscape that ought to be removed. I am all too well aware of those blots on the landscape because there are so many in my constituency. They were left behind by people who made a lot of money out of mining royalties in Lanarkshire from the coal which was there, and then left those ugly slag heaps. Power was taken in 1945 to have these things cleared at public expense. Some were cleared between 1945 and 1951, but none has been cleared since 1951. I wish that the Government would start to clear them under the powers they have under the 1961 Act. Let not the Government or the Secretary of State pretend that they will clear them under this Bill, because the right hon. Gentleman has no intention of doing so.

Mr. Willis: This is a most intriguing subsection. Would it be in order for the right hon. Gentleman with his 30,000 acres to put in for a grant to trim all the hedges or cut the trees in certain shapes to add to the beauty of the landscape? Would it be in order for him to make a model lake, or an artificial waterfall? I can see the right hon. Gentleman having a busy time under this subsection.

Mr. Noble: I can assure the hon. Member that if I spent a busy time thinking up schemes for my own land, I should have an equally busy time turning them down as Secretary of State.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman because I did not hear the first part of his reply to the debate. Nor did I hear the first part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend missed a brilliant speech.

Mr. Ross: I was correcting a brilliant speech that I had made earlier. I think my hon. Friend was right about paragraph (a). This part of the Bill—about improving and enhancing the beauty of certain areas—has everyone's approval. I wonder if it is desirable to limit it to country localities.

Mr. Willis: I could do with a bit of paint on my house.

Mr. Ross: We have this definition in the Bill:
 'country locality' means any locality in a rural area whether in the landward part of a country or otherwise.
I can think of certain parts of small burghs which could not be considered as rural areas, but to which it would be desirable to effect some changes. If the Secretary of State left it as it is, he would not be able to give any expenditure to any person, as apart from a local authority, in respect of changes which were made in such an area as I have mentioned.
The Money Resolution refers to allowances to members of a Scottish Tourist Amenities Council. I am sorry that it mentions this body because not everybody is agreed that this should be the name. It could have been denned in


much vaguer words. I do not like Parliamentary draftsmen to tie us down and to frustrate our efforts to improve things. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) suggested that this name was not very suitable and that we could find a better one. I am sorry that the Secretary of State thought fit to include this in the Money Resolution and to deny us the chance of amending it.
Paragraph (d) reads:
any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in Scotland.
It is clear that he limits any contribution under the Act to local authorities to the extent to which they might receive equalisation grant, although in Clause 4 he places considerable new duties on local authorities—duties which many do not now possess. Rural authorities are not the wealthiest in the country, but they are to deal with the provision of
area seats, shelters, viewpoint stances and indicators, together with any necessary footpaths leading thereto.
These are not things which can always be provided without a considerable amount of expenditure, and I think that he should leave it open for us to suggest that the Government should make a direct contribution from general grant, quite apart from limiting the provision to help being obtained under the equalisation grant.
He gives power to local authorities to advertise their areas. Is this expenditure to be met only out of the Exchequer equalisation grant? In Shetland and Orkney, 85 per cent. of the total local expenditure is covered by equalisation grant. In the Secretary of State's area, Argyll, about 64 per cent. of local expenditure is covered by equalisation grant. It varies between 60 per cent. and about 80 per cent. This provision would be all right for those areas, but for others it might be very desirable to give a specific grant in relation to what they do under this provision.
The Secretary of State has not answered the question about allowances to members of the council. How much are they to be? I should be grateful for some indication. He has fixed the title and I do not doubt that he has

already fixed the number of people concerned. I cannot see him denying us the possibility of changing something as unimportant as that and then giving us the opportunity of expressing an opinion on something which is much more important.
I should be grateful if he would answer the one or two questions which I have additionally put, and he may well have second thoughts on some questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and so far unanswered.

Mr. Noble: The definition of "country locality" has been specially drawn, as I explained—the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was not present when I wound up the debate—so that Cromarty and Kingussie could be brought within the provisions, although they were small burghs.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the equalisation, grant. Clause 4 provides only a power. Grants apart from the equalisation grant will be available under Clause 2. The hon. Member asked how much the expenses would be. All I can say about them is that they will be the normal travelling and subsistence allowances which are paid to people in many walks of life. I have not made up my mind how many people there will be on the Council. I have no doubt that I shall get some suggestions from Hon. Members in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed [copy laid before the House, 9th December], approved.—[Mr. Woodhouse.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Horwich [copy laid before the House, 9th December], approved.—[Mr. Woodhouse.]

Orders of the Day — FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND (PUBLIC SERVANTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

11.22 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I am very glad indeed to have an opportunity tonight to say a few words about the provision which is being made for the Federal public servants. It is true that this matter was raised in yesterday's debate, but as the debate was really on the Order I thought that it was wiser to have my Adjournment debate tonight to get some additional information, because those who are interested in this matter are very anxious to have some further knowledge.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies made this observation last night:
After considering the representations of the Staff Association, I am satisfied that there is not really any justification for reopening the inter-governmental agreement, and the five Governments including the Federal Government, all share this view. Nevertheless, the Staff Association has put forward certain proposals which, in its opinion, could be adopted without reopening the Agreement. These proposals will be considered in conjunction with the further detailed recommendations, which have now been received from the Inter-Governmental Committee in Salisbury. These deal with the treatment of hardship cases, the currency in which pensions are to be paid, and other related matters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1963; Vol. 686, c. 1068.]
Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretady kindly give a little more information about what was in my right hon. Friend's mind? Perhaps he will forgive me if I say that what I want to know is whether this means that there is a firm intention to meet the case which has been put forward by the Staff Association in relation to these matters, on which the Secretary of State I think intended to convey that he was reserving judgment. In other words, I want to know whether this was a firm action and not just a way of sounding conciliatory without really meaning to take action. I should like to be assured that in due course we may expect some real action after the proposals have been considered.
I want to refer also—because it is of great importance—to the statement that was made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he was Minister for Central African Affairs, in which he said categorically that on this very human issue of the treatment of the people who were concerned in the break-up of the Federation, we should be judged by our treatment of them. That, I consider, was a very important statement indeed.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-secretary of State will forgive me if I say that I do not consider that the arrangements that have been made are a sound prospectus. If my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary were the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not think he would consider that it would be in the interest of the nation as a whole to put forward a prospectus which was so indefinite and ill-drawn. It is not for Her Majesty's Government to present to the Staff Association a prospectus which has so many outstanding points which have not yet been resolved.
I am looking forward to hearing whether my hon. Friend can make a firm statement on the points which were raised by the Staff Association in the memorandum that it sent to my right hon. Friend on 5thDecember. May I briefly put on the record the points that were made in that memorandum. The memorandum from the solicitors representing the Staff Association said:
We found the draft Order in Council"—
as it then was—
very unsatisfactory. It does not make it clear what the currency of the pensions is to be, and the position is pretty vague with regard to the question of making up the fund to the required amount, the location of the fund, the appointment of new trustees and the actual payment of the pensions.
I agree with every word that is contained in the memorandum. One should not expect a body of public servants, who have served the Federation to the best of their ability, to regard as satisfactory a scheme designed to protect their interests which is so lacking in the fundamental explanations of what is to be the currency in which the pensions are paid, or of the details of how the pension authority is to be made up. This is not the kind of prospectus that ought to be issued by Her Majesty's Government. I hope, therefore, that my hon.


Friend will give some reassurance to those who rightly seek to preserve their position.
I think that a great deal of the anxiety which has been engendered by the unsatisfactory position of the proposals which have been put forward arises from the very real anxiety which those people have, and very rightly have, about their future. I am bound to say that when I attended the meeting at the Commonwealth Relations Office which was presided over by the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations and I listened to the arguments advanced I did not think the spokesman for the Commonwealth Relations Department met at all the case which was put forward by the spokesman for the Federal public servants. I say again that I do not think that it is right that the Government should come forward with suggestions which give all the appearance of very immature consideration. To my mind it certainly does not add to the lustre of the administration of the Government, nor does it really carry cut the undertaking which was given by my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary when he himself was speaking about the judgment which would be ours, based on the treatment of these people.
If I may, I refer very briefly to the fact of one of the African Governments now independent making attacks, as the Ghana Government have done, on the pensions of the widows whose husbands died and who are now the responsibility of the Ghana Government. It does not, of course, add to the feeling of security of the people who are concerned with this scheme under the Federation. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give us much more convincing evidence that we have got a fair, honourable and proper scheme to put forward to these people for whom we have such real responsibility.
I want very briefly to deal with one or two specific cases because I think they are important. I have received a copy of the terminal benefits and arrangements for the Federal Supreme Court judges. I want to put this on the record because, again, I do not consider that it has been proper treatment of the judges. Presumably my hon. Friend has read this memorandum. If he has

not I shall be indeed glad when he sees it on the record. It says:
The first occasion the judges became aware of the proposals relating to them was on Monday, 25th November, 1963. It must be remembered that in 1955 the Chief Justice gave up a seat on the Supreme Court of South Africa where he was assured of his full salary until the age of 70, followed by a pension. He did so to serve the Federation. Similarly, Sir Vintcent Quenet in 1961 gave up a secure seal on the High Court of Southern Rhodesia where he was assured of his full salary until the age of 70, followed by a pension. Instead of being compensated on the basis oil salary lost when their present posts are terminated, the proposal is to compensate them on the basis of past service. It is extremely doubtful whether the judges will be offered comparable posts in other courts and it is also extremely doubtful whether they will be able substantially to mitigate their loss by obtaining other employment. It is, to say the least of it, most unfortunate that they should be put in the position at their time of life, 59 plus and 57 respectively, of having to seek employment. The worst feature of all, however, is that the judges have been denied an opportunity to put their case either to Committee A or to Governments, other than the Federal Government, and the latter has been baulked by the laying of the Order in Council. It is not clear why it was considered necessary to freeze the compensation terms for judges into the Order in Council. The Federal Government feels that they could have been left over with other matters for further consideration.
This matter justifies the greatest condemnation of Her Majesty's Government for the treatment which has been meted out to these very distinguished servants. This sort of thing would never have been allowed to happen in this country. I am not in a position to say whether under the Order in Council which has now been passed it is possible to deal with the matter fairly and adequately, but, quite apart from the terms of the arrangements which have been made for these distinguished judges, I think that the memorandum adds substance to the point I was making, that the whole matter has been so hurried that there has been no proper consideration of the issues.
To revert to what I was saying earlier, it is now understood that the currency in which the pensions are to be paid has been referred to a sub-committee. At this stage, when the Order in Council has been laid, those of us who are interested in central African affairs would have preferred the Government to put off the matter until proper provision had been made for those who had served the Federation.
I want to raise one other specific individual point. This comes from the Ministry of Health in Nyasaland. It is a letter written to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and is signed by Mrs. Elizabeth Sword. It says:
I understand that Mr. Sandys has agreed to look into the matter of compensation for those Federal Civil Servants who find it impossible to carry on after the break-up of the Central African Federation.
Perhaps the following information in respect of two men, both of whom joined the Colonial Service, may be of interest to him.
Case 1…A Nyasaland Government (Colonial) Administrative Officer has just left. He receives £11,000 compensation, plus a bumped-up pension, plus, to my astonishment, a disturbance allowance of £500.
Case 2…A Colonial Medical Officer, whose post as Provincial Medical Officer has been abolished, gets a bare pension.
Both these men have worked side by side mostly in the Central Province of Nyasaland. One began as an Assistant Administrative Officer, rising, in this case, because of his undoubted ability, to District Commissioner, Deputy Provincial Commissioner and finally to Provincial Commissioner.
The second began as a fully qualified Medical Officer with valuable experience in medico-legal work and overseas experience during the war, becoming finally Provincial Medical Officer, Central Province.
Whilst I admit that the work of the former was by no means easy, I claim that the latter had a far more arduous job, including much night work. He did not wish to leave Nyasaland and was seconded to the Federal Ministry of Health until 1958 when he had to decide either to transfer to the Federal Ministry of Health or leave the country.
I have heard from the medical profession here that it fully supports the point of view put forward on behalf of those who were in the medical profession in the Federation.
I do not want to go further into this now, but I want to ask my hon. Friend if he is aware of the consternation with which this unsatisfactory arrangement has been received by many Hon. Members on both sides of the House. However unfortunate the break-up of the Federation may be, we are entitled, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary himself has said, to expect the Government to see that those who have served the Federation have adequate, fair and just treatment. From my little knowledge of these affairs—although I have taken some trouble to inform myself—I believe that we are entitled to expect some assurance

that those who have now become the responsibility of the new pensions authority will not be subject to unfair treatment. If the pensions authority breaks down, there seems to be no provision for dealing with the situation if any of the Governments concerned default on their undertakings.
We have all these agreements and undertakings, but all of us living in the modern world of today have seen so many agreements broken and so many undertakings tossed aside that it would not be right to accept all these assurances, even when the Government are associated with the pensions authority, unless we are certain that if there is a fall away or lack of contributions by any of the Governments concerned, appropriate steps will be taken.
I have put the case frankly and, I hope, reasonably. When we are dealing with human beings, it is absolutely essential to protect their interests. It is true that we have an obligation to protect the interests of Her Majesty's Treasury and Her Majesty's Government, but I am more interested in proper treatment being accorded to individuals. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give some of the assurances for which I have asked.

11.43 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. R. P. Hornby): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has raised this matter and I entirely share the anxiety, which she has expressed on this and other occasions when public servants from this country and elsewhere have been concerned, that this problem should be regarded as a human one, and for that very reason it needs to be handled with the greatest possible care and concern. This is a subject which affects the future livelihood of some 35,000 Federal civil servants and I welcome the opportunity to say that the words spoken by my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary, then in charge of these matters, were not idle ones when he said that it was a subject on which we must be judged and on which we had to take the greatest possible care in our decisions.
I wanted to give my hon. Friend that assurance about the anxieties which are shared by all concerned. For reasons


which I shall later explain, I cannot at this stage give her all the details for which she rightly asked, and which it is proper that we should examine, as indeed we are doing. In that connection, perhaps I should say a word about the timetable, as my right hon. Friend did yesterday. I freely admit that there has not been time for as carefully prepared a statement as we should have liked. The main reason, as my right hon. Friend explained yesterday, was that the decision of the Victoria Falls Conference imposed a very tight timetable once the decision on dissolution by 31st December had been made. It is inevitably, therefore, to some extent an interim statement that one is making, but I think it is better that one should have all the available knowledge before one, even though it does not represent the complete picture.
As the House will recall, details of the settlement on terminal arrangements for the Federal Public Service were announced on 18th September, and were the result of prolonged discussions between the five Governments concerned. The public service staff associations were given the opportunity of putting their views to the Dissolution Committee while this settlement was being worked out.
The House is familiar with the main details of the settlement, provision for which is made in Part II and the Second Schedule of the Order in Council, and I do not propose to go over those details. I think, however, that the House may like to know the latest assessment that I have been able to obtain of the prospects for future employment.
The most up-to-date information was given very recently by the Federal Minister of the Public Services. He said that of the 21,000 established officers in the Federal Service only 257 have so far been advised that the Territorial Governments are unable to offer them employment. The Federal Minister went on to estimate that it was very unlikely that the number of officers for whom the Territorial Governments could not find employment would exceed 400. He also said that fewer than 900 officers and employees had refused to consider offers of further employment.
So far as unestablished employees are concerned, the Territorial Governments have assured the Federal Public Service Commission that all 15,000 of these em-

ployees will be absorbed, almost to a man, and I think my hon. Friend will agree that in terms of jobs available this is encouraging.
I now turn to the main points made by my hon. Friend about redundancy compensation and security of the pension funds. Again I think that the details are fairly well known to my hon. Friend, namely, that officers for whom work cannot be found in their home territory will receive their earned pension plus an additional one-third.
I come next to the question of security. It has clearly been a matter of concern to the Federal Civil Service that there should be the maximum possible security for these terminal benefits, and also for future pensions, and for that reason it has been decided that the existing Federal Tension Fund, with assets amounting to approximately £17·6 million, largely invested in Federal stock should be taken over by a new Fund. Provision for this new Central African Pensions fund is made in Clauses 24 and 25 of the Order in Council, and the Fund will be administered by trustees domiciled in this country and initially appointed jointly by the Governments concerned.
It has been said that the settlement is ungenerous in one of two respects, and I should like to comment on that. The main ground for criticism has been, I think, that the treatment proposed for former Federal officers seems to compare unfavourably with that which has been accorded to ex-members of the Overseas Civil Service. I should like to reiterate, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, that the Federal Public Service is, and always has been, a locally recruited service. None of its officers has the status of Overseas Civil Servants, and this was made clear at the time of recruitment. I think my hon. Friend will also agree that it would have been impossible to make distinctions, so far as terminal benefits were concerned, based on an officer's race or country of origin, or for that matter country of recruitment.
Perhaps a further point which my hon. Friend and others might have considered is whether Her Majesty's Government ought to have provided additional compensation beyond what has been agreed with the Territorial


Governments. There are two reasons why one cannot accept this principle. First, I emphasise again, this is and always has been a locally recruited service, and, secondly, it is simply not possible to distinguish in terms between ex-members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Servants and other Federal officers.
I freely admit that there are certain points which are giving cause for anxiety. My hon. Friend referred to the meeting which she had with my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Since then, as she will know, a number of recommendations have been made by the Dissolution Committee in Salisbury, and also by the staff associations, which were told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that although he could not go back on or reopen the settlement between the Governments concerned he did understand that if there were particular points which the staff associations put up to him which seemed to avoid reopening the intergovernmental settlement these points would be carefully considered. I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that these points, some of which she mentioned, are being most carefully considered. They include

such subjects as the currency in which the future pensions will be paid and any possible deficiencies in the pension fund.
I hope, therefore, that what I have said, somewhat briefly and admittedly hurriedly in the time available, will indicate that everything possible is being done to reach a fair and satisfactory settlement of what is a very complex problem, affecting all the Governments concerned, not just the British Government, and that in arriving at a final agreement with the Territorial Governments full account will be taken of the views expressed by the public service associations to my right hon. Friend.
If I may summarise the position, this is a problem of a locally recruited service which, in our view, can best be dealt with in conjunction with the Governments concerned.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seven minutes to Twelve o'clock